Efforts are under way to phase out words such as "male" and "female" in the science community because they support the idea that sex is binary. More inclusive terminology like "sperm-producing" and "egg-producing" should be encouraged instead, scientists have said.
An article by a group of like-minded researchers in the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution discourages the use of some words and terms commonly used in scientific research which it argues are exclusionary and proposes alternatives. Terms like "invasive" or "non-native species" have "xenophobic, anti-immigrant and militaristic" connotations, the scientists argue, and suggest inclusive alternatives like “newly-arrived” or “nuisance species”.
The term "citizen science" could be considered "harmful to non-citizens" they say. The researchers advocate use of “participant science or community science” instead.
The EEB (Ecology and Evolutionary Biology) Language Project raises concerns about the phrase "survival of the fittest", which they say could be viewed as discriminatory against people with disabilities. They also highlight its association with eugenics as a cause for concern.
Haley Branch, a PhD candidate at the University of British Columbia (UBC) also argues that terms like "fitness" are too vague. She said: “The definition is about reproductive output, which doesn't take into account individuals that don't produce offspring.
“Often researchers aren't even measuring the number of offspring. They're looking at proxies of fitness instead, which becomes very convoluted.”
The word "optimisation" can be considered misleading, they argue, because it reinforces the idea that a species is evolving towards a defined permanent optimum. And the phrase "double-blind" - referring to studies where participants and scientists are both unaware of who's taking a drug or placebo - could also be deemed potentially offensive to people with disabilities.
Subscribe here for the latest news where you live
Dr Danielle Ignace of UBC said: “The EEB Language Project will be a living document, as particular words that are harmful and their alternatives can change over time. People can submit their suggestions online and have their voices heard.
"They can also get more involved as an individual, as an institution, or at the community level. The hope is that this grassroots effort brings people together.”
Dr Kaitlyn Gaynor, an author on the paper who studies the impact of human activity on biodiversity, said: “The project started as a Twitter conversation among a few people discussing potentially harmful terminology. We reached out to different networks in ecology and evolution that were focused on increasing inclusion and equity in the field to rally support for one very specific action—revising terminology that might be harmful to certain people, particularly those from groups historically and currently excluded from science.”
For more stories from where you live, visit InYourArea.
