We are horrified to discover that not every rose has a thorn

Feedback is New Scientist’s well-liked perspective on emerging science and technology stories. You can share any amusing items that might interest our readers by reaching out to Feedback at feedback@newscientist.com

Feeling Thorny

Feedback wishes to downplay this but we believe we’ve uncovered an issue that could alter a vast expanse of music and literature, prompting us to reassess one of our most beloved metaphors.

This epiphany arose when we discussed educators leveraging Taylor Swift music videos to introduce students to botany (27 September). Reader Gerald Legg pointed out a few discrepancies. Initially, one subject we mentioned was “competition for lightning”, when it should have been “lighting”. However, we found this mistake was in the original research paper as well.

Yet, it was Gerald’s second observation that spiraled Feedback into a realization. As a joke, we stated that “botany is a rose garden filled with thorns” (for those unfamiliar, we assume you may lack some Taylor Swift context).

Gerald contends: “Actually, botany isn’t a rose garden filled with thorns, unless you’re considering shrubs like blackthorn. What people refer to as thorns on roses are actually prickles, which are merely surface outgrowths, while thorns are modified stems.”

Feedback rushed to various search engines and consulted reliable sources such as the New York Botanical Garden website. We ultimately confirmed that, indeed, roses possess prickles, not thorns.

This revelation goes beyond a simple joke in Feedback or a single Swift lyric—it’s an entire lexicon that demands rewriting. For instance, we must amend William Shakespeare’s works—twice. Sonnet 54 cautions readers about “the canker blooms [that] have a dye as deep as the perfumed tincture of the roses / Hang on such thorns”, which is inaccurate. Furthermore, Sonnet 35 should start: “No more be saddened by what you’ve done / Roses have prickles, and silver fountains have mud.”

Additionally, Henry Van Dyke should have titled his poem Prickle and Rose and started it thus: “Far richer than a prickle-free rose / Whose branch with beauty never shines.”

Feedback is beginning to suspect that strict botanical definitions may complicate poetry and music. Nevertheless, there are bright sides. We can still appreciate Johann von Goethe’s Heidenröslein, since Goethe states, “Little rose defended herself and pricked,” without detailing the mechanism of pricking.

And happily, we can forget the melancholic power ballad Every Rose Has its Thorn by Poison. It appears every cloud may very well have a silver lining.

Sperm Communication

This year, Feedback dedicated considerable space to the Scunthorpe issue: the dilemma of innocuous words and phrases containing strings that may be inappropriate, complicating the creation of automated moderation tools for online discussions (26 April).

We thought this topic may have been exhausted, but educator Bernd Würsig has shown us otherwise. In the early 2000s, Würsig led a research team studying sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico—and clever readers can likely surmise where this leads.

One researcher transmitted daily reports via satellite phone, but only about half got through. Eventually, the scientists realized many of these reports included the term “sperm”, which the university servers blocked.

The solution was to rephrase by sending reports with lines like: “We observed and followed a matriarchy of whales.”

Just a Letter’s Shift

Our ongoing quest for the most amusing and/or unrefined scientific acronyms continues.

Christina Cheers kicks things off by highlighting an institute now known as the Australian Centre for Disease Preparedness. It’s a biosafety laboratory specializing in “highly contagious animal diseases,” she notes.

Over its four-decade existence, the center has undergone multiple name changes—its current title was adopted in April 2020. Prior to that, it bore the name Australian Animal Health Laboratory. However, Christina states that it was at one time known by a third name.

Initially, during its inception, the center was called the Australian National Animal Health Laboratory, “until the immature chuckles from numerous scientists prompted bureaucrats to delete ‘National’ from the name due to its awkward acronym.”

Interestingly, Feedback couldn’t find any mention of this little acronym debacle on the center’s official website. However, an article from the Australian Veterinary Journal from 1974 refers to the proposed lab with its full name, including the unfortunate acronym.

For an even more convoluted acronym, consider Niall Leighton’s offering—a European research initiative examining “how online narratives, including conspiracy theories and misinformation, spread and evolve, with a focus on folks aged 45-65.” (If only people would read New Scientist, they might avoid some of this.)

The project is named Social Media Narratives: Addressing Extremism in Middle-Age, which should have been condensed to SMNAEM(A), but confusingly is abbreviated to SMIDGE. Niall suspects it may work thus: Social Media narratives: Addressing extremism in mIDdle-aGE.

If anyone has a more intriguing acronym, they would indeed be a GENuinely Intelligent yet hUmble perSon.

Have a tale for Feedback?

You can share stories with Feedback via email at feedback@newscientist.com. Please include your home address. This week’s and previous Feedback articles can be found on our website.