The words “male” and “female” should be phased out in science because they reinforce ideas that sex is binary, scientists have suggested.
Researchers studying ecology and evolutionary biology should be encouraged to use terms such as “sperm-producing” or “egg producing” or “XY/XX individual” to avoid “emphasising hetero-normative views”, experts say.
Other words and terms deemed problematic include man, woman, mother, father, primitive, advanced, alien, invasive, exotic, non-native and race.
The terms were gathered as part of the EEB (Ecology and Evolutionary Biology) Language Project, founded by a collaboration of scientists in the US and Canada who claim some terminology is not inclusive, and could be harmful.
Even one of the most famous scientific concepts of all time, the “survival of the fittest”, should no longer be used because it discriminates against people with disabilities and is linked to eugenics, they advise.
Speaking about the term "fitness" - widely used in biology to signify the success of a species in its habitat - Haley Branch, a doctoral candidate at the University of British Columbia (UBC) said: “The definition is about reproductive output, which doesn't take into account individuals that don't produce offspring.”
However, critics warned that abandoning traditional terms for the sake of inclusivity could leave science lacking precision, as well as causing confusion.
Prof Frank Furedi, an education expert at the University of Kent, said: “I think that when you characterise terms like male/female, mother/father as harmful you are abandoning science for ideological advocacy.
“Regardless of intent, the project of re-engineering language will cause confusion to many and the last thing that scientists need is a lack of clarity about the meaning of the words they use.”
The EEB Language Project, which was launched in this month’s Trends in Ecology and Evolution journal, is compiling a repository of “problematic” words that have been identified by scientists as harmful and suggests alternatives.
For example, they have flagged up the term “citizen science” saying it could be “harmful to non-citizens” who may feel excluded. Instead, they suggest “participant science or community science”.
The term “invasive” or “non-native species” is also deemed to be “xenophobic, anti-immigrant, and militaristic”, and could be replaced with “newly-arrived” or “nuisance species”, they suggest.
Even the phrase “double-blind” - which is often used to describe trials in which neither the participants nor scientists know if they are on a drug or placebo - has been deemed potentially offensive to those with disabilities.
Other words such as “optimisation” can be misleading, the scientists claim, because it perpetuates the idea that a species is evolving towards a defined permanent optimum.
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.”
The EEB Language Project said it will “provide resources and support action to reconsider harmful terminology at the levels of individuals, institutions and broader scientific communities”.
Proponents of the changes say that although the use of “harmful” language is not usually intentional they warn “inadvertent harm” can arise as a result of the “inherent complexities and historical legacies of language”.
Changing terminology is something that individual researchers can do to boost inclusivity at an individual level, they said.
Dr Kaitlyn Gaynor, an author on the paper who studies the impact of human activity on biodiversity at the university, 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.”
Researchers studying ecology and evolutionary biology should be encouraged to use terms such as “sperm-producing” or “egg producing” or “XY/XX individual” to avoid “emphasising hetero-normative views”, experts say.
Other words and terms deemed problematic include man, woman, mother, father, primitive, advanced, alien, invasive, exotic, non-native and race.
The terms were gathered as part of the EEB (Ecology and Evolutionary Biology) Language Project, founded by a collaboration of scientists in the US and Canada who claim some terminology is not inclusive, and could be harmful.
Even one of the most famous scientific concepts of all time, the “survival of the fittest”, should no longer be used because it discriminates against people with disabilities and is linked to eugenics, they advise.
Speaking about the term "fitness" - widely used in biology to signify the success of a species in its habitat - Haley Branch, a doctoral candidate at the University of British Columbia (UBC) said: “The definition is about reproductive output, which doesn't take into account individuals that don't produce offspring.”
However, critics warned that abandoning traditional terms for the sake of inclusivity could leave science lacking precision, as well as causing confusion.
Prof Frank Furedi, an education expert at the University of Kent, said: “I think that when you characterise terms like male/female, mother/father as harmful you are abandoning science for ideological advocacy.
“Regardless of intent, the project of re-engineering language will cause confusion to many and the last thing that scientists need is a lack of clarity about the meaning of the words they use.”
The EEB Language Project, which was launched in this month’s Trends in Ecology and Evolution journal, is compiling a repository of “problematic” words that have been identified by scientists as harmful and suggests alternatives.
For example, they have flagged up the term “citizen science” saying it could be “harmful to non-citizens” who may feel excluded. Instead, they suggest “participant science or community science”.
The term “invasive” or “non-native species” is also deemed to be “xenophobic, anti-immigrant, and militaristic”, and could be replaced with “newly-arrived” or “nuisance species”, they suggest.
Even the phrase “double-blind” - which is often used to describe trials in which neither the participants nor scientists know if they are on a drug or placebo - has been deemed potentially offensive to those with disabilities.
Other words such as “optimisation” can be misleading, the scientists claim, because it perpetuates the idea that a species is evolving towards a defined permanent optimum.
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.”
The EEB Language Project said it will “provide resources and support action to reconsider harmful terminology at the levels of individuals, institutions and broader scientific communities”.
Proponents of the changes say that although the use of “harmful” language is not usually intentional they warn “inadvertent harm” can arise as a result of the “inherent complexities and historical legacies of language”.
Changing terminology is something that individual researchers can do to boost inclusivity at an individual level, they said.
Dr Kaitlyn Gaynor, an author on the paper who studies the impact of human activity on biodiversity at the university, 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.”
“
