Vinita Gowda’s research while affiliated with Indian Institute of Science Education and Research Bhopal and other places

The fundamental value of universal nomenclatural systems in biology, and the key to their success, is that they have enabled unambiguous scientific communication among and across different cultures. These systems are codified in sets of rules for zoology, botany, and other branches of biology. Nomenclatural codes have been collectively developed for many decades, providing scientists with rules resulting in a sound and stable biological nomenclature system. Nomenclature sustains all other natural sciences through its foundational support of taxonomy and systematics, enabling efficient global communication. We identify four core values of our present adaptative nomenclature systems: universality, stability, neutrality, and transculturality. These principles usually are unnoticed and are taken for granted by scientists and the general public. Their implicitness has allowed for misunderstandings that have fueled a recent, very vocal movement of activism that demand a fairer biological nomenclature through bulk revisions. We come to the conclusion that bulk revision will hamper scientific studies across different regions. Therefore, the scientific community should favour processes that ensure nomenclatural stability, despite good intentions of those proposing mass revisions. Yet, we readily and explicitly acknowledge that social justice should be a pillar of nomenclature pro-actively and suggest thoughtfulness in future construction and revision of scientific names. We have ensured that our initiative is inclusive and has undergone public discussion through an interactive process including the self-motivated participation of scientists from diverse regions, research backgrounds, and career stages in various languages to understand the impact of nomenclatural changes on their research and region. [...]

The fundamental value of universal nomenclatural systems in biology is that they enable unambiguous scientific communication. However, the stability of these systems is threatened by recent discussions asking for a fairer nomenclature, raising the possibility of bulk revision processes for "inappropriate" names. It is evident that such proposals come from very deep feelings, but we show how they can irreparably damage the foundation of biological communication and, in turn, the sciences that depend on it. There are four essential consequences of objective codes of nomenclature: universality, stability, neutrality, and transculturality. These codes provide fair and impartial guides to the principles governing biological nomenclature and allow unambiguous universal communication in biology. Accordingly, no subjective proposals should be allowed to undermine them.