As the technology of gene discovery changes, so does the debate on what to call genes?) BioEssays recently focused this important debate on how names bias interpretations of gene-product functions?) AS Wilkins offered three solutions to this problem? I will argue that they address only the problem's symptoms and their adoption may make matters worse. The solutions involve de-coupling gene names from an association with the phenotype of variant gene products. Since phenotypes are indirect observations of gene functions, (e.g. Refs. 1,4), there is merit in the tradition of Drosophila geneticists, for example, invoking seemingly whimsical names for genes and thereby inhibiting attempts to deduce specific biochemical properties from complex phenotypes. Laudably, Wilkins seeks broader application of the Drosophila tradition.* Geneticists lacking a Drosophila sense of whimsy could borrow names from "languages other than English,"(3) because then gene names would be automatically nonsensical to most of us. Whereas I welcome a multilingual genetics, it is not because most of the rest of the world just don't know what the words mean. The English language is not the only one able to instill bias in its users. Native English speaking scientists may even acquire a bias from words in other languages as these come to be associated with the details of the gene behind the name. Native English speaking scientists are not more susceptible to a language bias than other scientists. Furthermore, English is not the language of genetics by either design or right and may not always dominate scientific communication. So to suggest the use of non-English words to prevent transmitting a systematic bias is to mistakenly imply that scientists with other native languages will never contribute enough to science that their bias matters much.
展开▼
