Unmentionables
I read a rather depressing article this morning: Evolution by Any Other Name: Antibiotic Resistance and Avoidance of the E-Word. The paper presented a [not exhaustive, but reasonably convincing] survey of articles about the phenomenon of antibiotic resistant pathogens, in which the authors found a striking difference between the use of language in the 'evolutionary' literature versus papers in the 'biomedical' literature.
The authors argue that this is important because the biomedical articles tend to be the ones that get reported in the popular press, there is a strong correlation between use of the word evolution
in the research paper and in lay articles reporting that research, and this in turn amounts to a missed opportunity to show the lay public that evolution can be observed directly. I think they're right, but this isn't why I found the survey depressing: it's because of an issue they only touch on briefly - the reasons for this difference in language.
I have a very strong suspicion that the reasons relate to hostility in the lay community to the notion of evolution. Evolution has become one of those hot-button issues the very mention of which causes a reflexively adverse response in many people, so when evolution is not directly the object of study, I think authors and/or reviewers and editors are deciding to do some self-censorship. I can understand why they would do so: if the primary message they are trying to convey is about a public health issue, why risk reducing its audience by touching on something that will turn some readers off?
I think there's a real ethical dilemma in how to balance the damaging effects of self-censorship with a desire to get public health information out to the largest audience possible. I don't presume to know the right solution, but I find it very sad that this has to be done. More than anything else, it strikes me as an unwelcome reminder that we scientists do not get the privilege of operating in a 'value-free' world where we can just get on with science free of politicised constraints.
Comments