EDITORIAL
Common Scientific Language A willingness to agree on common language for science would be a great advancement
r. Henry Eyring, in his ACS Presidential Address in New York, suggested that concentration on a single tongue in science should be encouraged in every way possible. Noting that even the ablest scientist is hard put to keep abreast of the developments even in his narrow specialty, Dr. Eyring said that the Babel of tongues in which science is being published adds to the general confusion. A scientist could possibly read science in a dozen languages, he observed, but because more scientific information is published in English than in any other language, the scientists of the western world have in large measure adopted "imperfect English" as the language of science. A common scientific language often has been suggested. English already is either the first or second language of a high percentage of the world's scientists. Further development in that direction would yield obvious advantages. If nationalistic feelings are so great as to prevent acceptance of any single language, an alternative two-language system might ease the resistance. This would mean that those whose first languages was one of the two selected as official would have to learn one other language. All other scientists would need to learn two extra languages. However, the fact that several languages can be mastered relatively early in life is demonstrated in a number of countries where two or three languages are spoken quite adequately by many of the educated people. Agreement on one or two languages for science would greatly improve the dissemination of scientific information; the benefits to be gained,
D
even by those who would have to learn additional languages, would surely repay their added effort. If each country aspiring to scientific strength would establish at least one journal in either of the two designated languages, its scientists could publish in their own country and still reach directly scientists in every other part of the world. Much has been said about the "common language" of science with reference not to the words used, but to the spirit and ideas. At major international scientific conferences one can feel the strengthening of international relations among these people who meet one another personally. A common language in the literal sense could add further to this instrument of progress. From an English-speaking position such proposals obviously can come easily. In countries whose languages would not likely be chosen as one of the two, there might be some understandable feelings of discrimination. However, serious thought on the benefits that would accrue to scientists of all countries from a two-language system surely would assuage the irritation to some extent. With the rising importance of science in national and international politics, scientists ought to take a strong position from which to speak against political leaders' predictable resistance to such a proposition.
qiZà&cuty/C du*;***— SEPT.
16,
1963
C&EN
7
