The Centers for Disease Control recently issued a list of words and phrases to avoid in publications. The media (and social media) quickly howled that the Trump Administration was banning words.
I’m not a fan of Donald Trump, especially is anti-science view of what’s best for our nation and the world. However, we should take a step back and ask if some of the words and phrases that the new style guidelines suggest avoiding should be removed from scientific communication.
Part of the guidelines call for “appropriate clarifications” in materials. For some of the words, I understand. When I work with disability research projects they avoid generic “diversity” now. Instead, authors and researchers are asked to state “autism research lacks statistically significant numbers of females and people of color in previous datasets.”
Reflect on the benefits of being precise. Instead of wondering which diversity is being discussed, and there are many types of diversity, the author is asked to clarify. The reader benefits and the author has to be more… scientific.
Banning “diversity” sounds strange. It really should be up to peer review to address any problems with clarity. We need precision to overcome ignorance. There are federal style guides, though, and there is a federal law on the use of plain language in publications. Yes, a law exists called the Plain Language Act.
Some of the words are listed in the new CDC style guide as problematic for funding. That’s a different issue, but don’t we teach technical writing students to appeal to stakeholders? Sure, it stinks, but I teach that students need to read any call for proposals (CFP) and tailor their words to embrace the apparent biases of decision makers.
The style suggestions came from the department, as the administrators seek to play the game of Washington. It’s lousy, but I have had to play these games with local and state agencies. Sad, but reality.
Some of the suggested words are problematic, no question, and reflect the current Congress. If you are a scientist the choice is tough: play word games or risk funding. If it altered my research, I would likely exit the situation.
So, we have words that lacked scientific precision, words that are funding nuance, and just plain catering to a myopic Congress.
Arguably academic audiences have their own overused and vague terms, words we use / avoid for grants or proposals, and our own hang ups.
The problem for research is serious at the state and federal levels. I’m not sure how many researchers can or will wait out a change in direction. Three more years is a long time to fight the holders of the purse strings.
This administration is, sadly, a great opportunity for the study of effective and ineffective public discourse. We see time and time again that logic and reason hold little sway. How then to find the right emotional appeals to shift public opinions?
And, in our system, a majority doesn’t always win. You gave persuade senators and a president who doesn’t need a national majority.
The HHS / CDC situation reveals desperation within the research community to avoid becoming targets. Is that even possible? That’s like asking how universities can cease to be political targets.
Too bad we don’t have a way to separate the funding of science and all research from politicians.