Injecting humour in reporting science

Scientific communication and reporting have very often been considered dull. This is not just a layman’s belief; even the well-known physician and writer Richard Asher stated this in the 1950s in an article entitled, ‘Why are medical journals so dull’?¹ However, the changing decades in science have showcased the humorous touch of the otherwise serious field of research. The Ig Nobel prizes that celebrate the humour in science are one such example. The unique award ceremony recognises the unusual and creative side in research. The tagline for this scientific award is ‘make people laugh, and then think’. Interestingly, Nobel laureates present the awards to the Ig Nobel winners, so that it fosters recognition for the light-hearted ceremony.

The reality in reporting science is different in this era. Some scientists use humour in reporting science. Evidently, this is not the first attempt at an article to document humour in reporting science. One can find numerous funny titles in various blog posts and tweets on the internet. Nature too has previously published an editorial recalling some of the best titles in the past few years.² I performed a PubMed search with the keywords ‘wit and humour’ and found 4965 search results (accessed: 22 May 2024). It is not a niche trend; many renowned journals publish titles that are anything but dry. Researchers have used various means of reporting titles, from using puns, proverbs, metaphors, and other literary devices to make them sound interesting and humorous.

Here is a list that includes some titles that might not remind the reader of the medical jargon or the seriousness of the subject (my comments are in the brackets following the title): ‘Penny wise but pound foolish’,³ ‘CIA, MoSSAD, NKGB and SURETE in medical research: The RAW truth’⁴ (Intelligence agencies and research – a match made in pun), ‘Pressures produced when penguins pooh-calculations on avian defecations’⁵ (because who doesn’t want to know this about penguins?), ‘Differential Equations of Love and Love of Differential Equations’⁶ (balancing love and calculus equations never seemed so easy), ‘Stool-gazing’⁷ (because it matters), ‘Are surgeons spunkier than non-surgeons’?⁸ (Yes, finally an answer to the age-old debate), ‘Love is a microbe too: Microbiome dialects’⁹ (next up is, romance between bacteria?), ‘Non-aqueous, non-vitreous humour in medical journals’¹⁰ (who knew medical journals could be so dry….or not?), ‘Sexy sons: A dead end for cyto-plasmic genes’¹¹ (perhaps there is some room for soap opera in genetics), ‘How old are you in chimpanzee years?’¹² (spoiler alert: chimpanzees actually grow up and mature faster than humans do).

The use of informal language can also be seen in writing titles: ‘Bullshit in a network structure: the two-sided influence of self-generated signals’,¹³ ‘Four patients you love to hate’,¹⁴ ‘Why I Hate the Headlight ... and Other Ways to Protect Your Cervical Spine’.¹⁵

Humour has not always been a strong suit in representing science. However, the changing writing style and people’s enthusiasm to look at the same things ‘differently’ might have a lot to do with the breakneck pace at which the field is progressing. It is not just titles and abstracts; researchers are creative in writing acknowledgements too. Although writing acknowledgements gives the author a ‘free hand’ that is not bound by any reporting guideline, authors seem to be thanking everyone: from volcanoes to the almighty, from using sarcasm as a tool against the funding agency to proposing marriage, this section has seen it all. Here are some examples:

1. ‘We acknowledge the volcanic eruption at the Eyjafjalla Glacier, Iceland, for extending the stay in Stockholm of some of the co-authors and enabling the completion of the paper’¹⁶

2. ‘Although if you’re posting about that in an internet forum, we suspect you did not quite read this far, thus illustrating several stereotypes at once. For citation purposes, note that the question mark in ‘Smith?’ is part of his name. Yes, really’¹⁷

3. ‘In addition, Rui Long wants to thank, in particular, the patience, care and support from Panpan Mao over the passed years. Will you marry me?’¹⁸

There is still more to publishing in scientific journals. Perhaps, having nothing to write but yet defying the odds, this hilarious piece has created history. The entire notion that you need ‘content to publish’ has been demolished by this paper: ‘The unsuccessful self-treatment of a case of ‘writer’s block’.¹⁹ (Spoiler alert: This article is just a blank page with four lines of review comments. I do not intend to deprive you of the fun, check: doi: 10.1901/jaba.1974.7-497a.