Possible compromise: let the scientists have their terminology, and let general audience publications like the Economist have theirs. Mostly I just don't like

Possible compromise: let the scientists have their terminology, and let general audience publications like the Economist have theirs. Mostly I just don't like the idea that the Economist article's usage is "wrong" just because some scientists use different terminology. Different spheres of interest will always be tripping over each other's terms when they come into contact; too many pixels have already been spilled trying to remedy this inevitable occurrence (mine included!)