Sir
Beyond the excellence of the scientific reporting, I particularly enjoy the entertaining use of language and the enlightened levity of Nature. Consequently, I am somewhat concerned by the complaint of R. M. Ned and L. N. Steele ('Slang's not so slick when you remember its origins' Nature 447, 775; doi:10.1038/447775c 2007) regarding the use of the verb 'pimp', because of its “immoral origins”.
Should I take offence because the use of the terms 'wimp' and 'macho' to denote putative particles might perpetuate negative stereotyping of my gender?
The freedom and, especially, the humour of scientific reporting may be hindered by misguided attempts to avoid offending moralists.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hopkins, M. Puns: wimp or macho, not a particle of offence is meant. Nature 448, 865 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1038/448865a
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/448865a