August 15, 2007

Is This What They Mean by Evolution?

The journal Nature, one of the most venerable titles in scientific publication, has officially admitted women into its audience — but only by an oblique and seemingly grudging invitation. In an editorial published online this afternoon, the journal announced that it would amend its mission statement, which appears each week next to its table of contents.

The original statement, which dates to 1869, says that Nature’s mission is, among other things, “to aid scientific men themselves, by giving early information of all advances made in any branch of natural knowledge throughout the world.”

Nature’s editorial this week says that “our 1869 mission statement is out of date” and acknowledges that readers have complained about its continued use. But instead of altering the wording to replace “scientific men” with the neutral term “scientists,” Nature decided to solve its problem by inserting “[sic]” after “scientific men.” The editorial explains that the Latin term says, in effect, “alas, dear reader, this is what was said.” —Richard Monastersky

Comments

1. This is even worse than leaving it as an historical artifact. This is admitting it’s wrong, but rubbing the fact that they have no intention of changing it in people’s faces. It might not have been as satisfying to just ignore the letters, but it would have been better than this solution [sic].

   — DN    Aug 15, 04:42 PM    #

2. Should have inserted “[sick]”, to better represent Nature’s twisted logic.

   — richard    Aug 15, 08:11 PM    #

3. Oh, good grief. This is an example of what I call “linguistic Lamarckianism” – the belief that how we speak determines how we think, when it is the other way around. Why is Secretary heard as masculine and secretary as feminine? Because most Secretaries are men and most secretaries are women. It has nothing to do with grammar, it reflects social reality. Where I come from, there used to be a municipal office called “Alderman”. One of the best-known aldermen was June Rowlands, who later became mayor. The phrase “Alderman June Rowlands” rolled easily off the tongue, and nobody thought it in the least peculiar. One day, however, city council decided that the syllable “-man” was unacceptatble, and voted to replace “Alderman” with “Councillor”. The irony escaped them that Councillor, like Mayor, is grammatically just as masculine (or not) as Alderman: were we living in another age, June Rowlands would have become the mayoress and before that a counciloresses. These uses have naturally become archaic, like aviatrix, executrix and authoress. I don’t think doctoress was ever used. Language naturally loses these inflections – we simply stop hearing them. The suffix “man”, unstressed and pronounced “mn”, had already become genderless before the Lamarckians raised a fuss about it, started stressing the syllable, and undid centuries of progress as well as destroying a whole useful chunk of the English language. There was, before they got to work, not problem with having a woman chairman: she was addressed as “madam chairman”. Now she is a chair, and we have a confusion between the Chair of Albanian Studies who may also be the Department Chair. Thanks a lot. In the meantime, Secretaries and Councillors and Mayors continue to be mainly male, Condoleeza Rice and June Rowlands notwithstanding: the Lamarckians have simply managed to obscure that reality and allow us to pretend that it has gone away. It is, I hope, a fad of the 70s that will eventually fade away, because it is fundamentally sic (sic).

   — MichaelCollins    Aug 15, 09:06 PM    #

4. And beyond all this we still have W-O-M-A-N which was changed to W-O-M-O-N in some novel I read….is person netural? I guess the bottom line is if we respect each other all this is moot.

   — Robert Paterson    Aug 16, 07:22 AM    #

5. Language certainly does affect the way we think and continuing to address it is important. The language we use sets parameters and opens doors in the mind. New words opens more doors which makes an expanded vocabulary a tool for nuanced thought.

   Language is always changing. Each generation laments the additions and subtractions of the next, but the confusion as we search for better words to explain gender neutrality is a small concession toward linguistic integrity.

   — David Sauerwein    Aug 16, 08:29 AM    #

6. Long live political correctness!

   — Mark de Goz    Aug 16, 09:59 AM    #

7. Nature’s decision only serves to distract readers from the magazine’s mission statement. Had the magazine followed Mr. Monastersky’s suggestion about using the word “scientists,” those of us who favor gender-neutral wording wouldn’t have been left shaking our heads.

   — Patrick Vecchio    Aug 16, 10:07 AM    #

8. Nobody should doubt that the editorial staff of Nature tossed this issue around at length before making their decision. I for one rather like the emendation…it shows that someone there has a sense of humor, which is all too rare these days in academic publishing.

   — Dyspeptic    Aug 16, 03:36 PM    #

9. There’s an entire side of this argument that has been missed. Nature wasn’t faced with “sexist vs. nonsexist language” when it considered amending its mission statement; it was faced with a “non-sexist language vs. historical integrity” problem. Nature has been around for nearly 140 years, and with the same mission. That’s a cause for celebration and laud. I wouldn’t expect them to throw out 140 years of something that worked just because it grates on some ears today. Indeed, Nature and its mission is more permanent than the English language, and to expect a pillar like Nature to change its mission statement everytime the winds of language, politics, and myriad -isms shift is preposterous. They didn’t amend their mission statement to exclude communist scientists during the Red Scare; nor to kowtow to creationists; nor to any other faddish politics . . . as well they shouldn’t have. This minor change to the mission statement reflects the knowledge that gender bias really is a consideration, that political correctness isn’t just a fad. Still, it’s no reason to rewrite their history.

   And rewriting history is what this is about. This mission statement is 139 years old. As such, it exists not only as a current mission statement but also as a historical document. I wouldn’t expect Nature to eliminate gender bias in this document any more than I think the two instances of “men” in the Gettysburg Address should be changed to “people.”

   Remember, too, that the decision to alter the mission statement wasn’t made by a bunch of men. Women work at Nature as well, and certainly had some input into the change.

   — Andy Hollandbeck    Aug 16, 03:52 PM    #

10. How can clever people be such idiots? Instead of making a sensible small change (scientific men to scientists) they insist on maing a stupid small change (adding sic). Stupid because they don’t understand that the change will have the exact opposite effect to the one they’re aiming for.

    — Adrian Bailey    Aug 16, 04:04 PM    #

11. I think this is certainly a step in the right direction but it doesn’t go far enough. No mission statement, indeed no work of rhetoric is complete without a well-positioned footnote and at least a dozen academic references. I have been working for three years on a new version of Kennedy’s ‘Ich bin ein Berliner’ speech with multiple emendations relating to north German pastries and the use of the partitive. I hope it will replace the original in all subsequent quotes.

    — mark    Aug 17, 12:33 AM    #

12. Well said, Andy at #9. Too often, in the commendable pursuit of inclusiveness, we whitewash historical inequalities, giving the impression that they have never happened and as such cannot affect the present. Nature’s addition of [sic] strikes an elegant balance between modern ideals of equity and preservation of historical sentiments. It invites the reader to consider the continued progression, not only of scientific knowledge, but of social justice in our language and culture.

    — Keely Rew    Aug 17, 07:25 PM    #

13. Leaving aside sex and language, the difference between ‘scientists’ and ‘scientific people’ is large. The former says ‘scientist’ is the totally of what they are. The latter refers to people, first and foremost, who happen to have the capacity to be scientific (potentially among many others). It is more humane and more inclusive, and I’m glad Nature chose to stay away from ‘scientists.’

    (It’s for the same reason I prefer ‘gay people’ to ‘gays.’)

    Plus, yes #8, it’s funny.

    — Matt Webb    Aug 20, 10:49 AM    #

14. The Editorial was about our 1869 mission statement, which offends some people in its wording when we reprint it.
    Nature long ago updated its mission statement, which is freely available on the “about the journal” page of our website at
    http://www.nature.com/nature/about/index.html
    (together with a link to the 1869 version, for comparison). The modern version is:
    Nature’s mission statement
    First, to serve scientists through prompt publication of significant advances in any branch of science, and to provide a forum for the reporting and discussion of news and issues concerning science. Second, to ensure that the results of science are rapidly disseminated to the public throughout the world, in a fashion that conveys their significance for knowledge, culture and daily life.
    Maxine Clarke
    Nature

    — Maxine    Aug 20, 11:50 AM    #

Previous: Alumni Group Seeks to Deny Tenure to Middle Eastern Scholar at Barnard College
Next: New York Attorney General Seeks Information from Study-Abroad Providers