Evolution by any other name

The increase in resistance of human pathogens to antimicrobial agents is one of the best-documented examples of evolution in action at the present time, and because it has direct life-and-death consequences, it provides the strongest rationale for teaching evolutionary biology as a rigorous science in high school biology curricula, universities, and medical schools. In spite of the importance of antimicrobial resistance, we show that the actual word “evolution” is rarely used in the papers describing this research. Instead, antimicrobial resistance is said to “emerge,” “arise,” or “spread” rather than “evolve.” Moreover, we show that the failure to use the word “evolution” by the scientific community may have a direct impact on the public perception of the importance of evolutionary biology in our everyday lives. (Antonovics et al. 2007. PLoS Biol 5(2): e30 doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050030)

Papers published in evolutionary biology journals, like Evolution and Genetics use the word “evolution” far more often than those published in medical journals, like The Lancet or The New England Journal of Medicine. The difference doesn't arise because scientists publishing in medical journals don't understand evolution. As Antonovics and his co-authors put it, “papers in the medical literature generally included professional and competent descriptions of evolutionary processes.” The difference must arise because medical scientists feel uncomfortable using the word evolution.

If this were merely a matter of personal discomfort, it would hardly be worth noticing but it isn't just a matter of personal discomfort. Journalists are busy people. They draw heavily on their sources for the words they use to describe new findings. If the papers describing those findings don't use the word “evolution,” neither will articles in the popular press describing those findings.

If articles in the popular press describing the emergence of new diseases or the evolution of multidrug resistant bacteria fail to mention the word “evolution,” is it any wonder that “Over the past 20 years, the percentage of U.S. adults accepting the idea of evolution has declined from 45% to 40%”? (source) or that the Tennessee state senate is considering a resolution “to request the commissioner of education to provide answers to questions concerning creationism and public school curriculums in Tennessee.” (PDF; more information from the National Center for Science Education)