Sir

I have two questions in response to Rognes's Correspondence (Nature 417, 379; 200210.1038/417379b). First, has most of his research work been done before or after June 1967? The “occupied territories” have been within Israel's borders since that date. If the major piece of research was performed after 1967, surely the territories should be referred to by their current names? Would anyone in the scientific community nowadays call India a part of the 'British Dominion', or place Ukraine in the 'USSR'? Would anyone use the name 'Rhodesia' when referring to Zimbabwe or 'Ceylon' instead of Sri Lanka?

As with any scientific nomenclature, a scientist is required by a journal to use the current names of territories, regardless of his or her politics. It may be useful to add comments regarding historical names if they are relevant to the research described.

Second is the issue of showing some respect to the publisher's country. If you know that certain names are a sensitive issue in certain countries, and you do not wish to take sides in a political debate local to the area, why not use the terms that are used by the country concerned and by most of the world? I do not think Nature's publishers in the United Kingdom would be happy to review manuscripts referring to the Falkland Islands as the 'Malvinas'.