Letters: November 2021

Your correspondents Anna Krylov et al, criticise RSC editorial guidelines which aim to promote diversity and inclusion, scattering words such as ‘censorship’ and ‘offended mob’, and claiming that the term ‘normal pH’ will be banned because it ‘allegedly makes most people feel excluded’.

Referencing an article by Krylov herself, terms ‘objectionable to some’ include ‘normal’ which is actually being dropped by Unilever from soap packaging because normal skin is an indefinable concept. No one has suggested that the term ‘normal pH’ in scientific literature be banned. 

Krylov refers to an article in ACS Chemistry Letters where it is stated of scientific discoveries, ‘If the [discoverer] … advocated unacceptable offensive views, supported oppressive regimes, or war crimes, then one needs to carefully consider if that person deserves celebration.’ The authors then do just that with the cases of Peter Debye, Fritz Haber and William Shockley, concluding that only Shockley’s name should be removed in view of his widely expressed racist views – Krylov erroneously claims that they called for the removal of all three names. 

Krylov et al refer to the withdrawal of Tomáš Hudlicky’s Angewandte Chemie article as censorship. Hudlicky claimed, against evidence, that progress in organic synthesis was being harmed by the promotion of diversity. Chemists who objected are dismissed by Krylov et al. as an ‘offended mob’. 

They also cry censorship over the retraction of a piece about ‘tribalism’ in medical specialties – it was republished with better wording and an apology by the authors. Their editor notes that ‘“tribalism” [has] no consistent meaning’. 

In no case was the dissemination of scientific knowledge under threat and there is no reason to expect the RSC’s thoughtful policies to differ. By all means, let us exchange ideas freely but without offence. 

Les Hearn MRSC
Via email