On September 18, 2025, two landmark studies were published, each shining a spotlight on the subtle but powerful ways language, bias, and communication practices shape lives in both healthcare and science. While one study, led by Perera, Kotsani, Duque, and colleagues and published in European Geriatric Medicine, scrutinizes the persistent use of ageist language in healthcare, another, spearheaded by Tatsuya Amano from the University of Queensland and appearing in PLOS Biology, exposes deep-rooted gender, language, and income biases that limit contributions to English-language scientific journals. Together, these studies reveal how ingrained attitudes and institutional norms can marginalize entire groups, constraining both their dignity and their opportunities to contribute fully to society.
According to European Geriatric Medicine, ageist language in healthcare remains a significant barrier to effective communication and patient dignity. Perera and colleagues argue that terms such as “the elderly” or generalizations like “many of them” depersonalize older patients, stripping away their individuality and reinforcing harmful stereotypes. Their research calls for an urgent re-evaluation of communication practices, urging the healthcare sector to promote respect and dignity for aging populations. The study underscores that language is not merely a tool for conveying information—it shapes perceptions, influences self-esteem, and ultimately affects the quality of care older adults receive.
The authors highlight that as people age, they often confront a barrage of negative descriptors that diminish their personhood. “The significant role of language in healthcare cannot be overstated,” the study states, emphasizing that empathy and trust are as crucial as medical expertise, especially for vulnerable populations. The research reveals that healthcare professionals, sometimes unconsciously, resort to condescending or dismissive language, which can alienate patients and lead to poorer health outcomes. This, the authors suggest, should prompt a paradigm shift toward more respectful, patient-centered communication.
Delving deeper, the study documents how phrases commonly used in clinical settings can pigeonhole older adults, reducing them to stereotypes rather than recognizing them as individuals with unique life experiences. The historical context of ageism in medical terminology is not lost on the authors, who note that many terms, while seemingly benign, carry negative connotations rooted in societal norms. “Such changes require a concerted effort from medical institutions to retrain staff on the importance of mindful language use,” they write, advocating for a comprehensive review of existing vocabulary and the adoption of alternatives that affirm patients’ dignity.
Central to the study’s recommendations is the concept of patient-centered communication. Healthcare providers are encouraged to engage older adults in conversations that prioritize their preferences, thoughts, and feelings, rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all approach. “This model fosters a sense of partnership between providers and patients, cultivating an environment where older individuals feel valued, heard, and respected,” the authors explain. They also stress the need for professionals to reflect on their unconscious biases, noting that societal attitudes toward aging often seep into clinical practice, shaping the way care is delivered.
To address these challenges, the study points to the effectiveness of training programs and workshops that raise awareness of ageist language and provide practical strategies for adopting more inclusive terminology. The authors urge healthcare institutions to implement policies that explicitly commit to combating ageism through language, fostering a culture of respect. Notably, the benefits of respectful communication extend beyond patient comfort: research suggests that patients who feel respected and valued are more likely to engage with their care, adhere to treatment plans, and communicate openly about their concerns. In this sense, promoting dignity through language becomes a cornerstone of effective healthcare delivery, particularly in geriatrics.
On the same day, PLOS Biology published a study by Tatsuya Amano and colleagues that uncovers a different—but equally consequential—set of biases in the world of science. Their research surveyed 908 environmental scientists from eight countries, including Bangladesh, Bolivia, Britain, Japan, Nepal, Nigeria, Spain, and Ukraine, to examine how gender, language, and income affect scientific productivity as measured by English-language publications. The findings are stark: women, especially early-career women, published 45% fewer English-language papers than men. Women with non-English first languages published 60% fewer, and women from low-income countries with non-English first languages published 70% fewer than men who are native English speakers from high-income countries.
But the story doesn’t end there. When Amano’s team included both English and non-English publications in their analysis, they found that non-native English speakers at early to mid-career stages published more peer-reviewed papers than their native English-speaking counterparts. Scientists from lower-income countries also outpaced those from higher-income countries in overall publication numbers. However, even with this broader lens, women still published fewer articles than men. The authors caution that these statistics, if taken at face value, could be misused to portray women, non-native English speakers, and those from low-income countries as less scientifically productive. “We believe that this gap is not a true reflection of individual productivity. Rather, as a growing body of evidence shows, it stems from systemic barriers that continue to limit fair participation and full contribution to science by historically and currently underrepresented groups,” the researchers write in PLOS Biology.
The study’s call to action is clear: institutions and evaluators must recognize the impact of gender, income, and language on scientific productivity and support the inclusion of non-English publications when assessing scientists’ contributions. Without such changes, the current system risks perpetuating inequities and overlooking the true breadth of global scientific talent.
Both studies, published on the same day but in vastly different fields, converge on a central truth: language and bias, whether in the clinic or the laboratory, have the power to include or exclude, to uplift or marginalize. The research led by Perera and colleagues urges healthcare professionals to scrutinize their words and attitudes, advocating for institutional reforms that embed dignity and respect at every level of patient care. Meanwhile, Amano’s findings challenge the scientific community to rethink how it measures and values productivity, taking into account the diverse realities and barriers faced by researchers worldwide.
As society faces the twin challenges of an aging population and a rapidly evolving scientific landscape, these studies remind us that progress depends not just on technical advances, but on the willingness to confront uncomfortable truths about how we treat one another. Whether it’s the quiet power of a word in a hospital corridor or the invisible hurdles faced by a scientist trying to publish her work, the imperative is the same: to build systems that honor the dignity, talent, and contributions of all people, regardless of age, gender, language, or background.
In a world that often prizes speed and efficiency, these findings are a timely reminder that real progress is measured not just by outcomes, but by the respect and fairness embedded in the process itself.
