The Observer ran a front page story today about research into spelling standards. I was concerned about the tone of the article. Below is my email to Dr. Bernard Lamb, the researcher.

UPDATE: A week later, no response from Dr. Lamb.

…

Dr. Lamb,

I am writing to express my disappointment at The Observer's coverage of your research. I am concerned that the article (today, page 1 and 2) ridicules some scientists, portraying them as illiterate because of intellectual laziness.

My complaint is not about the focus or rigour of your research, but the impression that its coverage has created. You have helped to perpetuate an unfortunate stereotype of the self-selecting illiterate boffin.

The Observer coverage fails to consider that many students at an institution such as Imperial find it easy to tackle tasks that are based on logic and numbers, but harder to use language correctly. As a member of the Queen's English Society you probably do not struggle with the correct use of language. However, I am surprised that during your time at Imperial you have not developed more sensitivity for those who do.

I am an Imperial College alumni. I would have been a prolific contributor to your list of errors if I had taken one of your courses. This email probably contains errors, despite my best efforts to avoid them.

At risk of self-indulgence, I will use myself as an example of my point:

For a decade my mother, a senior teacher, spent hours every week pointing out, and correcting my grammar and spelling. Her tuition improved my writing, but did not raise my skills to an acceptable level. At primary school I was taught individually by a series of teachers, who were each intrigued by how a child could be at the bottom of the class for spelling and at the top of the class for mathematics. The county special needs department were also unable to significantly improve my spelling during primary or secondary school. I am sure the tuition I received was not perfect. For example, I was never tested for dyslexia or other recognised conditions. However, I believe it is clear that my poor linguistic skills stem from a lack of natural ability, rather than a lack of effort from myself or others.

Since leaving Imperial I have developed a successful career consulting to senior corporate and government officials around the world, but I still struggle to express myself in writing (for example, writing this email has been a significant effort). I often encounter people who assume this is due to laziness. My approach is to emphasise my other skills, but building and maintaining respect can still be an uphill battle, given the stereotype you have helped to fuel.

I am sure you are not responsible for the angle from which your research was covered. I also note that you publish comparisons of the linguistic skill of science and non-science students. However, I consider The Observer's coverage to be an inevitable consequence of the combative and judgemental way in which you appear to have approached your research, and worded at least one publication [1].

While I applaud your efforts to improve standards, I also ask that you take more care in future to ensure that your work does not create a negative impression of scientists.

Given the strength of my feelings on this matter, I have published this email on my website [2]. I will be happy to publish your response in full on request, and I may decide to publish anything you send to me.

Regards,

Chris Jackson

[1] For example, I am concerned by the tone, rather than the rigour of a sentence such as "Spelling is important. Bad spelling gives the impression that the writer is ignorant, careless and unintelligent. It can mislead, confuse and frustrate the reader, and delay or prevent comprehension." http://www.spellingsociety.org/journals/j24/under.php)

[2] http://adrideo.com/2007/spelling-standards