Ok, this is progress: The journal Nature updated it’s mission statement:

Our 1869 mission statement is out of date.
The original mission statement of this journal, first printed in Nature’s second issue on 11 November 1869, was therefore running behind the times when it referred to “Scientific men” — even though, to be fair, the word ’scientist’ did not enter general circulation until the end of the nineteenth century. In other respects it is well worded — which is why we print it every week in the Table of Contents.

The statement expresses two purposes for this publication. The first is “to place before the general public the grand results of Scientific Work and Scientific Discovery ; and to urge the claims of Science to a more general recognition in Education and in Daily Life”. Today this is as important as it has ever been — although members of the public have important considerations to lay before scientists, and Nature reflects them also.

The second thrust was expressed as follows: “to aid Scientific men themselves, by giving early information of all advances made in any branch of Natural knowledge throughout the world, and by affording them an opportunity of discussing the various Scientific questions which arise from time to time.”

In printing the statement verbatim every week as we have done, making it clear when it originated, we have hitherto assumed that readers will excuse the wording in the interests of historical integrity….There is a convention within the English language by which writers quoting text can indicate their view that a particular phrase is inappropriate. That is to insert sic, a Latin word meaning ‘thus’, after the phrase — in effect expressing the sentiment ‘alas, dear reader, this is what was said’.

This is what we will do in the mission statement from now on. The small, belated change takes place against the vast backdrop of a scientific world where the upper echelons of academia, academies and prestigious awards are still numerically greatly dominated by men, and where outright discrimination can still rear its ugly head (see page 749). In this context, the insertion of a Latin word in a couple of paragraphs may be a tiny step: but it is at least one in the right direction.

I don’t really understand why they just didn’t change it to “scientist,” though. That seems like it would be simpler and clearer. And isn’t that what science is supposed to be about?

Also, I thought this was suspect:

“feedback from readers of both sexes indicates that the phrase, even when cited as a product of its time, causes displeasure.”

 

So, if only women had complained, it wouldn’t have been a valid complaint? Huh? It’s a sad comment that they thought they had to indicate that men validated the womens’ complaints.

Reddit It | Digg This | Add to del.icio.us