Open Letter: “a letter, often of protest or criticism, addressed to a specific person, but intended to be brought to public attention.” -American Heritage Dictionary (via Jamie Campbell’s Open Letter Prompt)
Open Letter to Nature Editor Mr. Gee
Dear Mr. Henry Gee,
You are the editor of a science journal. Scientific works require a large amount of editing. These must be concrete, fact driven and should contain as little bias as possible. It is also your job to promote ethical work as evidenced by the commenting requirement on the site that, “You must not submit any material to the Site which… is inappropriate. Material will be considered in appropriate if that material is…defamatory, abusive, malicious, threatening, false, misleading, offensive, discriminatory, harassing, blasphemous, racist or sexist,” as Paul Anderson mentioned in his detailed letter to you. How can you hold reviewers and readers to high ethical standards, but not authors? This is why I fail to comprehend why the article Womanspace by Ed Rybiki was a necessary work that you felt must be published.
First, the article is a work of science fiction. Just because a genre has “science” does not mean that the work is meant to be published in a “science” journal. The most important part of the term “science fiction” is the “fictional” aspect of the writing. I cannot comprehend why you feel the need to include both fiction and fact, in one journal. Arguably, I found myself confused, and doubt the credibility of Nature. How am I to tell whether each work is reliable given that there is the potential for fact and fiction in various articles? Therefore, I recommend that you not only remove the science fiction article Womenspace, but all writings under the category of “science fiction” on the Nature website.
Furthermore, there is a lack of “fiction” within Womenspace considering the summary involves author Ed Rybicki “swearing that at least some of this is a true story.” True stories are arguably “non-fiction” and the story has iMacs, cars and stores (all which exist today). The story could possibly be taking place in 2011. Considering the short story is in the “Futures” section of Nature and if the story is true it must have occurred in the past … how can it qualify for the “Futures” section?
I understand that this article may have been an attempt to provoke reaction (considering your comment “I’m amazed we haven’t had any outraged comments about this story”), or perhaps divert from the common science journal stereotype with inserts of fiction, but the issue is you have forgotten your audience. The purpose of the article was obviously not scientific betterment; thus, the article became a “bad way to crank up traffic on the site” (Female Science Professor).
The actual writing of said article was questionable and the rhetoric was too clear. Not to mention that the author defended his point while failing to realize that “his writing” was likely the issue. True the article was meant as a satiric piece, but if the piece is not conveying satire than it must be a combination of the readers and authors fault. Had the article been in a different media (a blog, book, fiction magazine) the satire of the article would have portrayed differently (and arguably easier). Your readers, Mr. Gee, are not well versed on finding satire and irony in everyday readings. The readers of Nature are educated and prone to taking the points literally. What else would you expect from science enthusiasts who pore over reports, theses and abstracts all day? Science writings are considered “dry” only because adjectives, adverbs, and descriptive langue could lead to different interpretations and perspectives. While new perspectives mark success for “fiction” writers, science articles serve to unite readers about a new theory or possibility. Scientific writing is the lack or individualistic thinking and fiction encourages the act of distinct interpretation. Clearly science and fiction are divided; thus, should not be combined in a scientific journal such as Nature.
The merging of these two distinct genres (scientific articles and fiction) will always be controversial and misleading to readers because Nature is only one genre (labeled on the site as a “scientific journal”). Had Nature been a scientific journal/ science fiction journal perhaps the audience would have understood the transition between science and science fiction. Since no such entity exists I recommend you remove the article or start a science fiction Nature magazine. Theoretically speaking, even if the article had been given a lengthy introduction explaining that the article in question was satiric and fictional audience members would still have been offended because fiction shouldn’t been in science journals to begin with. The problem is even with rhetorical choices designed to promote a satiric interpretation the battle has already been lost. The first rhetorical choice to put a fictional work in a science journal cancels any attempts at satire (as most fiction writers don’t expect high levels of literary interpretations from the scientific community).
In addition, most of the controversy surrounding “Womenspace” argues that the article is “sexist.” As one commenter Marnie M. eloquently explained, “regardless of your [Rybiki] qualifying statements here in the comments and your intentions and true views, your story comes across as sexist.” So here in lies the problem, since a majority (mainly women) are offended and consider the article to be sexist is it sexist? The answer, Mr. Gee, is yes. Just because author Rybiki didn’t intend to be sexist and is not sexist in real life does not mean that “Womenspace” is not an offensive sexist piece of writing.
But is appears that Rybiki was aware that his work would read the wrong way when he tweeted “I WILL catch flak for this…all about looking for knickers. Womanspace : Nature.” No apology, no attempts at understanding other readers’ perspectives, no attempts at editing, only comments that author Rybiki does not consider himself to be sexist. He argued that, “my own (better-paid) professional wife thought it was funny. So too have a number of other senior female professional colleagues – and their female grad students.” Female Science Professor best sums up the fallacy of this argument, “men are only sexist if they say they are, but they never are if someone else says they are? And any woman can speak for all other women … and therefore if only one woman is not offended, sexism doesn’t exist…”
Again this is a false idea then statements such as “I’m not a racist, but Asian’s can’t drive” would be labeled as “not racist.” However, this is not the case. The usage “I was just joking,” “it was written tongue-in-cheek,” and “I’m not sexist/racist” before writings that can and may be taken as sexist/racist does not remove an author from being a “sexist/racist” writer. Also as Female Science Professor stated one woman, or man does not speak for the opinions of all women or men; therefore, it is incorrect to make vast generalizations (especially in scientific journals) that do not apply to all people.
Sexism is often referenced to predominately male careers (business, math, science etc.); even today men dominate most of the STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics). The article reads as sexist because it is dealing with a subject (science) in which some women still feel the effects of sexism. In the blog post by Female Science Professor titled “He Must Be Joking,” she gives a stark portrayal of sexism in her past experiences at a university. Following the post many women (and men) contributed their own experiences with sexism. Debatably, sexism issues still arise within the scientific community today and even a “tongue-in-cheek” article brings to mind those sexist ideals existing currently. Though the short story’s purpose may have been to remind the audience to refrain from sexist notions; the joke “hits too close to home.”
Your idea, Mr. Gee, was good in theory and bad in practice. You attempted the experiment (fiction merged with fact) and received different results than I assume you expected. The scientist within you knows how you should react. Apologize, remove the article, remove your current theory, discover why the theory failed and create a new theory. If not I expect you’ll see a decrease in publications, potential readers and reliability of your esteemed scientific journal.
Sincerely (a no longer potential Nature reader),
Brenna McNabb
Anderson, Paul. “An open letter to Nature.” Webblog entry. Once Upon a Time in the West of London. 17 Nov. 2011. 1 Dec. 2011. <http://www.paulanderson.org.uk/2011/11/an-open-letter-to-nature/>
“He Must Be Joking.” Webblog entry. FemaleScienceProfessor. 7 Dec. 2009. 1 Dec. 2011. <http://science-professor.blogspot.com/2009/12/he-must-be-joking.html>
Henry Gee. Science journal comment #27330. Nature. Nature.com. 3 Oct. 2011. 1 Dec. 2011. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7366/full/477626a.html>
Marnie M. Science journal comment #31213. Nature. Nature.com. 28 Nov. 2011. 1 Dec. 2011. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7366/full/477626a.html>
“Nature Error.” Webblog entry. FemaleScienceProfessor. 18 Nov. 2011. 1 Dec. 2011. <http://science-professor.blogspot.com/2011/11/nature-error.html>
Rybicki, Ed. “Edrybicki Status.” Twitter. 29 Sept. 2011. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <http://twitter.com/#!/edrybicki/status/119389612786458624>.
Rybicki, Ed. “Womanspace.” Nature 477.7366 (2011): 626. Nature Publishing Group : Science Journals, Jobs, and Information. 28 Sept. 2011. Web. 1 Dec. 2011. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v477/n7366/full/477626a.html>.
