So let me get this straight: Scientists would rather rename genes, than to simply use a tool other than MS Excel?
Nothing will ever replace spreadsheets, because the tech industry no longer believes in making products for power users. In modern thinking, any form of user training is an indication your product is too complicated, and any feature only used by 5% of users should be removed.
The idea of a product where users have to type in incantations like =VLOOKUP(A1,C2:D16,2,False) which they're just supposed to somehow know? A product that's essentially unusable on mobile? A product with features like 'Pivot Table' that only 1% of users ever use, and yet it's a vital core feature?
It's absurd. Only in 1970 could someone have conceived of such a thing.
It's not that they'd rather.
They understand that a trillion dollar corporation cannot supply the most basic tool they need for work, despite trying for 40 years. They just can't effect change. The real problem behind it all is that they allow themselves to be bullied. Despite holding multiple PhDs they cannot actually exercise rational choice.
The scientists work in an organisation where a suit called Kevin and a middle aged lady in a cardigan called Mavis choose what software they use. Kevin and Mavis are "IT experts".
Kevin and Mavis choose Microsoft because they think it is "reputable", and they like the colours, and because HR have had "Microsoft Office" as a mandatory hiring requirement since 1990.
Mostly though, they don't want to upset Colin who is head of IT, Colin still thinks Windows XP was the best thing ever and goes a funny shade of red when anyone mentions Linux (or anything else he doesn't understand). Bless him, he's close to retirement anyway.
Meanwhile Tom the MD, whose "door is always open" invites the scientists and engineers into a "consultation". They tell him that Microsoft and Google offer 1990s solutions to twenty-first century needs, that their products are unfit for purpose, unstable and insecure too. They even produce a report of all the software they need along with suppliers, budgets and installation guides. Colin has gone a very worrying shade of purple.
Six months later the square root of fuck-all has happened. An uncomfortale quiet hangs in the air. Someone nobody ever heard of called Isabella, who actually works for "strategy and brand" in the parent company - and is married to some Microsoft guy - over-rode the whole thing.
Tom mumbles something about preferred suppliers and compliance. Kevin and Mavis assure the scientists that Microsoft are going to fix everything in the next update. Colin is restored to a smug pink. Science will have to wait.
Big Tech is a complex cultural problem.
I’d guess that this is becoming less and less common, it pretty much sums up the places I worked at during the late 90’s but mot so much anymore.
In mine (academic) they fired Mavis, Kevin and Colin (a week before his retirement party) and moved the lot into "the cloud". What was once the "campus network" vanished and became a wholly managed outpost of Microsoft.
Same - I'm still waiting for Microsoft to make me a decent set of drill bits. Can't believe a trillion dollar corporation cannot supply the most basic tool I need for work!
The real story for me is that people are lazy and rather deal with the annoyances they already know and that are one click away than learn new tools.
Circa 2000 I worked in a place with such a head of IT. After some effort I managed to get my work done by bringing in my own Linux laptop. But, connecting it to the network was strictly prohibited ("everyone knows that Linux is insecure"), and data had to be transferred by floppy disk to/from the rather unreliable networked Windows PC shared by me and two other scientists in the same office. This PC used to crash after each user logged out and required a reboot pretty much every time.
Instead, the path of least resistance is to change the name of all known genes that cause problems with Excel. Biologist are changing and adding names all the time, so it's not like this is new. E.g. https://www.uniprot.org/uniprotkb/Q04609/entry#names_and_tax... shows you a gene with 5 names.
[1] Source: POUMA
Even if you're conscientious enough to handle this issue, the automatic conversion could come and cause you problems from anyone you share data with: medical teams, grad students, administrators...
Perhaps there is a minority who thinks that automatic data conversion is unsound, and a majority who thinks it's 'pragmatic', and will let them move faster.