To the editor—Your editorial "Molecular medicine growing pains" (Nature Med. 4, 641; 1998) is an example of the use of a new scientific jargon. Basic research in medicine, biology, biochemistry, etc. is now to be referred to as 'molecular medicine' or 'biomedical research'. A few comments may not be amiss:

'Molecular medicine' presumably is equivalent to 'medical research at the molecular level'. However, work at the molecular level has been the constant aspiration of chemical research in general, and of medical research in particular, since the time of John Dalton, Amedeo Avogadro, Joseph Priestley and many others. Was the work of Louis Pasteur and of Paul Ehrlich anything but work at the molecular level, as known to them and their contemporaries? Again, 'biomedical' is a hybrid of 'biological' and 'medical', as if biology and medicine were alien disciplines. 'Biomedical' is a Humpty Dumpty portmanteau word. What happened to William of Ockham's splendid piece of advice: " Pluralitas non est ponenda sine necessitate (Plurality should not be posited unnecessarily)"?

"Molecular biology", a prominent American biochemist used to say, "is practicing biochemistry without a license". This, I believe, is the raison d' etre of the new scientific jargon. With a change in vocabulary, new vistas of application open. Proper training and competence can now be disregarded. All one has to do is assume a cloak of 'molecularity'. Is there a way out? Nonmolecular scientists of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your (reaction) chains.

Editors note: We note from his letterhead that the author is an Associate Professor of "Biochemistry". Surely some mistake!