Sam McCarren, Jude Daya, Alice L. M. Fairnie, Anna Fagre, Desiree Forsythe, Troy A. Roepke, Cora S. Stobie
<p>We are writing in response to John R. Pannell's (2023) commentary, “Sex, sexes, sex roles, and gender in land plants,” published in the <i>American Journal of Botany</i>. While Pannell's discussion about the use of the term “plant gender” in biology raises important points, it also highlights broader issues about how biologists engage with sensitive topics. This letter serves as a starting point to reflect on how we can approach such discussions more thoughtfully and inclusively.</p><p>Natural scientists often perceive themselves as objective, focusing on empirical evidence and data (Beebe and Dellsén, <span>2020</span>). However, history has shown that science is a human endeavor, and humans are naturally subjective beings. There are numerous examples through time where this has led to problematic scientific experiments or outcomes, including, for example, phrenology (Bank, <span>1996</span>), genetic essentialism (Moore et al., <span>2025</span>), the eugenics movement (Allen, <span>2011</span>), nonconsensual human research practices such as the Tuskegee syphilis study (Paul and Brookes, <span>2015</span>) or the theft of Henrietta Lacks' cervical cancer cells (Beskow, <span>2016</span>), and finally, the misuse of science to support antiqueer and antitrans policies (McNamara et al., <span>2022</span>). These instances of scientific racism and sexism have enduring consequences that shape public trust in science and affect marginalized communities to this day. For example, research continues to show that students have a difficult time separating the social construction of race from phenotypic differences in skin color (Donovan et al., <span>2020</span>). More relevant to this piece is the harm that persists in the conflation of sex and gender (Stuhlsatz et al., <span>2020</span>; Forsythe et al., <span>2024b</span>), a point that we will further unpack in the later sections. We emphasize through these examples that science is not practiced in a vacuum—every scientist is shaped by their subjective experiences and social context (Haraway, <span>1988</span>). Science does not only aim to describe reality, it also shapes how it is discussed. This becomes particularly important when addressing socially sensitive topics tied to identity, such as gender, sexuality, race, nationality, religion, or disability. For this reason, many journals require position statements from authors on both the lived experiences and identities that they hold, and what makes them experts in the topics they discuss.</p><p>For example, the authors of this letter are queer and/or transgender. When reading Pannell's (<span>2023</span>) commentary supporting the continued use of “gender” to describe different aspects of reproductive function in plant biology, we found ourselves in collective disagreement and concerned about the potential of this argument to further confuse students and the general public. This reaction underscores why the perspectives of those most affected
此外,Oberle和Fairchild(2023)认为,在植物生物学中使用“性别”会造成不必要的混乱,并强化人类中心主义和二元思维。他们指出,正如社会科学和公众所理解的那样,性别适用于人类身份和社会结构,而不是生物功能。他们的工作进一步强调,在植物生物学中保留这一术语不仅歪曲了植物繁殖中涉及的生物过程的复杂性,而且混淆了性和性别之间的重要区别,从而疏远了性别认同不符合二元框架的个体。他们的批评直接挑战了Pannell的主张,即在生物学中使用“植物性别”一词可能是有用的或良性的。然而,Oberle和Fairchild只是科学界不断增长的运动的一个例子,他们在社会和科学的边界上努力解决复杂的想法,并从伦理上推动该领域朝着减少伤害的语言和想法发展。在Taylor和Dewsbury(2018)中,作者解决了科学中隐喻的复杂且经常有问题的使用。Hales(2020)为科学教师提供了如何在科学课程中教授复杂概念以减少伤害的指南。奥格登(2024)提供了一个令人信服的论据,反对在讨论生态学时使用“入侵”和其他战争和仇外的隐喻。这些例子都指向一个日益增长的主题:虽然科学与社会结构之间的关系可能是复杂的,而且具有深刻的历史意义,但我们不能为了暂时的简单而选择忽略这些有问题的概念。我们加入到这场日益壮大的运动中,呼吁科学界重新定义科学中存在问题的语言。当自然科学家和教育工作者参与敏感的社会问题时,他们有责任对这个话题进行深入的教育(Driessen et al., 2024)。自然科学方面的专业知识不会自动转化为对社会科学的理解。此外,大多数学术生物学家没有接受过关于教育最佳实践的正式培训(Winberg等人,2019;Forsythe等人,2024a),更不用说包容性教学了。但包容性教学法有可能在疏远或欢迎来自不同背景的学生之间产生关键差异(Hales, 2020)。特别是在生物学中,解决复杂社会结构的内容可以通过使概念更相关,从而使学生更感兴趣,从而提高学生对材料本身的记忆和理解(Dewsbury et al., 2022)。重要的是,任何促进敏感问题讨论的人都要认真确保自己做好准备,不仅要有科学知识,还要对问题的社会、历史和政治背景有细致入微的理解(Matlin et al., 2019)。促进困难对话的研究人员和教育工作者应该考虑指出他们自己的主观局限性,并鼓励参与者也这样做(Harding, 1995)。此外,任何两个有争议的立场都不应该仅仅因为它们是在科学框架内提出的就被视为同样有效(Grimes, 2019)。调解人必须发挥调解和指导作用,而不是强加自己的观点,而是引导对话走向包容和尊重(Pendergrass, 2017)。对于这些讨论来说,教室是一个特别微妙的环境,尤其是当被辩论的身份特别脆弱和/或由群体中的少数人代表时。例如,在一个主要由基督徒学生和一个穆斯林学生组成的教室里,关于伊斯兰教和进化论之间冲突的讨论很有可能疏远个别的穆斯林学生,并在群体中制造紧张气氛。少数民族学生往往承担着代表性的重量,而促进不良的讨论可能加深孤立和排斥的感觉(Tuitt, 2012)。因此,在这种情况下,讨论基督教与进化论之间的冲突会更合适。同样,这种动态也适用于关于性别和性的讨论。在关于“植物性别”的讨论中,一个非二元或跨性别的学生可能会感到被孤立或被忽视。了解敏感问题对学生来说通常是有价值的(Lowe, 2015),但这绝不应该以牺牲边缘化群体为代价。跨性别者和双性人等性别少数群体的权利取决于精确和包容的语言(Miyagi et al., 2021)。因此,关于性或社会性别的讨论必须谨慎措辞,以避免任何可能被用来支持反性别意识形态或民粹主义叙事的模糊性。 因此,以一种允许学生质疑现状并学习超出自己学科的观点的方式来组织关于植物繁殖的讨论将会更有益。例如,Subramaniam和Bartlett(2023)发表的文章就是一个很好的基础。辅导员必须对这些动态保持敏感,并积极努力防止伤害,同时鼓励公开、尊重的对话。此外,他们应该根据自己的专业知识以及每个特定队列的组成来调整讨论主题的选择。根据我们的经验,在演讲厅里以一种敏感和包容的方式讨论性和性别,不仅能减少伤害,还能积极肯定酷儿和跨性别学生的身份,帮助他们在学术领域感受到被关注、被尊重和被重视。科学进步常常涉及到修正我们的理解和适应新的观点。即使是经验丰富的科学家有时也会被误导,或者没有意识到他们工作的更广泛的社会影响,这是很自然的。最重要的是,一旦这些问题被指出,我们如何应对。我们都应该致力于改善科学的文化和实践,反映出知识的完整性和首先承认危害而成长的意愿。科学话语不断演变,以反映新的理解和社会进步。生物科学一再放弃充满偏见或误解的术语,以支持精确和中立(例如,Houk等人,2005;Callaway, 2024)。同样,在植物生物学中的“性别”背景下,认识到受我们使用的语言影响最大的人的观点并进行相应调整,将加强我们工作的科学和社会基础。像Oberle和Fairchild(2023)以及Subramaniam和Bartlett(2023)一样,我们建议在植物生殖生物学中不要使用像“性别”这样不精确的术语,而是采用科学准确、上下文清晰、没有政治内涵的术语。这一变化不仅将澄清植物生殖系统,而且将使该领域与更广泛的科学界保持一致,并作为科学中深思熟虑的语言使用的模型。尽管改变有时是艰难的,但它并不是看起来不可克服的挑战。特别是在教授下一代科学家的时候,我们在教授这些概念的方式上做一个简单的改变就会立竿见影,例如,“生殖分配策略”或“定量交配系统”这样的术语可以很容易地取代“植物性别”。生物科学并非孤立于社会问题之外。当生物学家参与自然科学和社会科学交叉的话题时,他们必须认识到这些对话所带来的社会和政治影响。促进跨学科、深思熟虑、见多识广和包容的讨论需要的不仅仅是提出相反的观点。它需要引导对话走向理解、尊重和包容。Pannell的评论强调,生物学家需要更仔细地处理这些问题,确保那些受影响最大的人的声音不仅被听到,而且被重视。构思和发展这些想法,并撰写了手稿的初稿。所有作者都积极参与撰写和完善文本,参与形成论文的讨论,提供关键反馈,并批准最终版本。
{"title":"Facilitating inclusive discussions on sensitive topics in biology","authors":"Sam McCarren, Jude Daya, Alice L. M. Fairnie, Anna Fagre, Desiree Forsythe, Troy A. Roepke, Cora S. Stobie","doi":"10.1002/ajb2.70133","DOIUrl":"10.1002/ajb2.70133","url":null,"abstract":"<p>We are writing in response to John R. Pannell's (2023) commentary, “Sex, sexes, sex roles, and gender in land plants,” published in the <i>American Journal of Botany</i>. While Pannell's discussion about the use of the term “plant gender” in biology raises important points, it also highlights broader issues about how biologists engage with sensitive topics. This letter serves as a starting point to reflect on how we can approach such discussions more thoughtfully and inclusively.</p><p>Natural scientists often perceive themselves as objective, focusing on empirical evidence and data (Beebe and Dellsén, <span>2020</span>). However, history has shown that science is a human endeavor, and humans are naturally subjective beings. There are numerous examples through time where this has led to problematic scientific experiments or outcomes, including, for example, phrenology (Bank, <span>1996</span>), genetic essentialism (Moore et al., <span>2025</span>), the eugenics movement (Allen, <span>2011</span>), nonconsensual human research practices such as the Tuskegee syphilis study (Paul and Brookes, <span>2015</span>) or the theft of Henrietta Lacks' cervical cancer cells (Beskow, <span>2016</span>), and finally, the misuse of science to support antiqueer and antitrans policies (McNamara et al., <span>2022</span>). These instances of scientific racism and sexism have enduring consequences that shape public trust in science and affect marginalized communities to this day. For example, research continues to show that students have a difficult time separating the social construction of race from phenotypic differences in skin color (Donovan et al., <span>2020</span>). More relevant to this piece is the harm that persists in the conflation of sex and gender (Stuhlsatz et al., <span>2020</span>; Forsythe et al., <span>2024b</span>), a point that we will further unpack in the later sections. We emphasize through these examples that science is not practiced in a vacuum—every scientist is shaped by their subjective experiences and social context (Haraway, <span>1988</span>). Science does not only aim to describe reality, it also shapes how it is discussed. This becomes particularly important when addressing socially sensitive topics tied to identity, such as gender, sexuality, race, nationality, religion, or disability. For this reason, many journals require position statements from authors on both the lived experiences and identities that they hold, and what makes them experts in the topics they discuss.</p><p>For example, the authors of this letter are queer and/or transgender. When reading Pannell's (<span>2023</span>) commentary supporting the continued use of “gender” to describe different aspects of reproductive function in plant biology, we found ourselves in collective disagreement and concerned about the potential of this argument to further confuse students and the general public. This reaction underscores why the perspectives of those most affected ","PeriodicalId":7691,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Botany","volume":"112 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2025-12-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ajb2.70133","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145686778","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Nicolò Tellini, Ole K. Tørresen, David Edwards, Loren H. Rieseberg, Kjetill S. Jakobsen, José Cerca
Understanding the genomic basis of diversification is a central goal in evolutionary biology. In recent years, the development and use of pangenomes, a genomic representation of multiple individuals within a lineage (a set of related populations, subspecies, ecotypes, or species), has enabled researchers to differentiate between DNA sequences shared by all individuals of a given lineage (core regions) from those present only in some individuals (accessory or variable regions). Differentiating between core and accessory regions has highlighted a key limitation of relying on a single reference genome: It captures the genetic code of only one individual and this biases genomic analyses and our understanding of diversification. Here, we propose that by identifying genes associated with both core and accessory regions, we can deepen our understanding of the processes underlying diversification. We suggest that analyzing pangenomes and accessory regions will provide deeper insights into diversification, hybridization, and the genetic basis of adaptation and speciation.
{"title":"Pangenomes as a framework for adaptive radiation, speciation, and adaptation","authors":"Nicolò Tellini, Ole K. Tørresen, David Edwards, Loren H. Rieseberg, Kjetill S. Jakobsen, José Cerca","doi":"10.1002/ajb2.70130","DOIUrl":"10.1002/ajb2.70130","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Understanding the genomic basis of diversification is a central goal in evolutionary biology. In recent years, the development and use of pangenomes, a genomic representation of multiple individuals within a lineage (a set of related populations, subspecies, ecotypes, or species), has enabled researchers to differentiate between DNA sequences shared by all individuals of a given lineage (core regions) from those present only in some individuals (accessory or variable regions). Differentiating between core and accessory regions has highlighted a key limitation of relying on a single reference genome: It captures the genetic code of only one individual and this biases genomic analyses and our understanding of diversification. Here, we propose that by identifying genes associated with both core and accessory regions, we can deepen our understanding of the processes underlying diversification. We suggest that analyzing pangenomes and accessory regions will provide deeper insights into diversification, hybridization, and the genetic basis of adaptation and speciation.</p>","PeriodicalId":7691,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Botany","volume":"112 12","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7,"publicationDate":"2025-12-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://bsapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ajb2.70130","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145676061","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}