A systematic review of differential rate of use of the word “evolve” across fields

Abstract

Background Although evolution is the driving force behind many of today’s major public health and agriculture issues, both journalists and scientific researchers often do not use the term “evolve” in discussions of these topics. Methods In a total of 1,066 articles and 716 papers selected from 25 US newspapers and 34 scientific journals, we assess usage of the word “evolve” and its substitute words in the contexts of cancer tumor drug resistance, HIV drug resistance, mosquito insecticide resistance, and weed pesticide resistance. Results We find significant differences in the use of “evolve” among fields and sources. “Evolve” is used most when discussing weed pesticide resistance (25.9% in newspapers, 52.4% in journals) and least when discussing cancer tumor drug resistance (3.9% in newspapers, 9.8% in journals). On average, scientific journals use “evolve” more often (22.2%) than newspapers (7.8%). Different types of journals (general science, general clinical, cancer specific, and drug resistance specific) show significantly different “evolve” usages when discussing cancer tumor drug resistance. Discussion We examine potential explanations of these findings, such as the relatively recent framing of cancer in evolutionary terms, before looking at consequences of low “evolve” usage and of differential “evolve” usage across fields. Use of the word “evolve” may not reflect current understanding of the problems we examine. However, given that our ability to tackle resistance issues relies upon accurate understandings of what causes and exacerbates resistance, use of the word “evolve” when called for may help us confront these issues in the future.