What do research fields like artificial intelligence (AI), medicine, and climate change share? They could all benefit from an understanding akin to the story of Rumpelstiltskin. As fairy tales suggest, knowing the “true name” of a concept—an age-old idea in folklore—grants us power over it.

While it might not seem scientific, psychologists reveal that a person’s name can significantly influence perceptions. The same may hold true for scientific terminology. Take “artificial intelligence” as an example: despite its groundbreaking potential, a simpler label like “machine learning” might have mitigated much of the controversy surrounding it.

There’s no definitive “real name” in the folklore sense, but some labels undoubtedly resonate better than others. Recent years have seen a shift away from stigmatizing disease names, exemplified by the World Health Organization (WHO) quickly rebranding the Wuhan coronavirus to COVID-19 and renaming monkeypox to mpox in 2022.

Some renamings correct inaccuracies, such as the recent shift from polycystic ovary syndrome to polyendocrine metabolic ovary syndrome. However, renaming isn’t always effective. For instance, earlier references to “greenhouse effect” or “global warming” have evolved into “climate change,” a broader term that now reflects various effects beyond just rising temperatures. Meanwhile, the technical phrase “net zero” has lost clarity and is often misappropriated by those opposing environmental policies.

What factors contribute to successful renaming? Terms like “artificial intelligence” generate vivid associations compared to “machine learning.” A directive approach from reputable institutions like the WHO can also facilitate this process. Ultimately, some names simply stick better due to being more memorable; even if it’s a tongue twister, I won’t forget Rumpelstiltskin anytime soon.