Editorial: Writing Wrongs - American Chemical Society

---

E?a

GUEST EDITORIAL

Writing wrongs Perhaps I am becoming cantankerous, or simply hypersensitive, but it seems to me that every scientific, technical, and nontechnical magazine I read contains at least one article sprinkled with mathematical-grammatical errors right out of the fifth grade. These errors are distracting and, rightly or wrongly, can undermine the reader’s confidence in the accuracy of the data and in the technical competence of authors, reviewers, and editors. The most common is the times-greaterltimes-asgreat error. For example, 50 ppm is not five times (500%) greater than 10 ppm; it is four times (400%) greater. The error in using five times greater is 25%. Of course, 50 ppm is five times as great as IO ppm. In the same family of errors are times-higherltimes-ashigh, times-largerltimes-as-large, times-fasterltimesas-fast, and so on. Times excess also occurs. I find that usage of times greater, higher, larger, and faster is almost always incorrect, when data are available to verify the correctness; I am forced to assume that similar but uncheckable statements must be wrong just as frequently. Attempts to make calculations from these statements can be fraught with error. If we are not careful, we may lose the specific meaning of these phrases, just as we have of others such as “biweekly,” which, at least in the United States, now means every two weeks and twice a week. Almost as common are the times-less, times-smaller, times-lower errors. Times colder and orders of magnitude less can be included here. All are mathematically and grammatically impossible. For instance, IO pprn is neither five times (500%?) less nor even four times (400%?) less than 50 ppm. It is 80% less. Alternatively, 10 ppm is one-fifth of 50 ppm. The limit is 100% less. Naked decimal points are becoming embarrassingly frequent, streaking across computer printouts and through the literature, spawned by the software writers. We learn, in about the fifth grade, that 0.63 is correct, .63 is wrong, and - .63 is unforgivable. There is, of course, a practical reason for this. However, W13936YJS6/W2&0247~1.50100 1986 American Chemical Sociely

sportswriters regularly compound the error when reporting a batter hitting .250percent. One hit in 400? I am no expert in the field of grammar, so when even I observe these particular errors my faith in the rest of the article is shaken. It is difficult sometimes to get the fact accepted that there is an error or, if there is acceptance, to have steps taken to prevent a recurrence. Education is the answer, of course-not just through high school and college, but by way of the journalists’ bible, the stylebook. A stylebook in some form is the ultimate authority for virtually all writers. Stylebooks vary and may disagree, but every organization uses one, whether it has been written in house or by others. It is disappointing to find that some stylebooks contradict the fundamentals taught in our schools. The stylebook of one of the nation’s largest weekly news magazines contradicts itself by defining watt, w, as a traditional unit and, on the opposite page, stating that watt, W,is metric. I believe it is important to keep a sense of proportion when leveling criticism, but we must not let these errors breed and get out of hand. I am not proposing anything as grandiose as calling on the English-speaking world to rise up and slay these semantic dragons, but 1 hope that writers, reviewers, and editors and the editors of individual stylebooks will take note and up date accordingly. Then, for all of us, it may be the end of writing wrongs.

.A

.

* 3

W

Kenneth A. Hooton is the senior chemical consultant for the Salt River Project in Phoenix. Ariz. He has degreesfrom London and Arizona State universities and, over the Dast 40 years. has Dracticed chemistry an8 semanrr‘cs in Afrka. Europe, and the United States. To his friends, he is the consummate which docto,: Environ. Sci. TBehnOl.. MI.20. NO.4. 1986 307