Eponymy is the practice of naming newly described species after real people, be it royalty, military figures, or other scientists. There is an unfortunate history of species being tied to problematic figures or institutions through their names, and there has long been discussion about doing away with eponymy altogether. Two recent papers, Guedes et al. (2023) and Orr et al. (2023), present opposing viewpoints about the importance of eponymy and the benefits and drawbacks of ending the practice.
Guedes argues that creating stricter guidelines and renaming preexisting species with eponyms will avoid the problematic connotations of some species names and create a more standardized system in the future. Many scientific names of species uphold oppressive power systems like colonialism, racism, and slavery, either through the names of individuals who perpetuated those systems or through the swath of African species named after people from occupying countries like the UK. In a post colonial world. Many of these names carry dramatically different connotations than they did when the species were first named. Naming species after real people is unnecessary altogether and trivializes the discovery/naming of a new species and opens the door to issues such as the real beetle species named after Hitler (Anopthalma hitleri).
Orr argues in favor of the preservation of eponyms, arguing that removing all eponyms will end up erasing the achievements of many and potentially decreasing public trust in the scientific community at a time when it is already low. It would also wash away the meaningful progress being made to give historically marginalized and underrepresented communities control over naming local species. Banning eponyms denies contemporary researchers the same opportunities for notoriety as historical researchers as well as preventing former colonies from dubbing new species in the same way that their colonizers did with their own names. It also erases individuals who made real positive contributions to their field.
I’m inclined to agree with Guedes et al., as former colonies may take special issue with endemic species that exist in and are studied by residents of those countries holding the names of their oppressors. Much work has been done to remove other vestiges of oppression such as confederate statues in the United States and names of certain regions and landscape features that are named for problematic figures or institutions. Science should be no different, as species get renamed/reclassified all the time when new information is presented and prompts a change. Society changes their opinions of individuals based on new information and/or changes in culture all the time, and it would make sense for science to account for that pattern by removing the component that makes the scientific community susceptible to reaffirming colonialism. Renaming those species will not undo the years of referring to species by the names of your oppressor, but it would signify a desire to move towards better practices as scientists. The sheer volume of species named after problematic individuals makes it super difficult to retroactively change names, but it may be worth the trouble in the long run. I’m not sure I agree that all of them NEED to be changed, in large part because of how difficult it would be, but changing names of species with explicitly harmful origins is the bare minimum that is acceptable. As public opinion/culture changes, more names would have to be altered, and I think that’s totally fine. Banning the use of real names altogether would probably be a net good at the end of the day.
References:
Guedes, P., Alves-Martins, F., Arribas, J.M. et al. Eponyms have no place in 21st-century biological nomenclature. Nat Ecol Evol 7, 1157–1160 (2023)
Orr, M.C., Hughes, A.C., Carvajal, O.T. et al. Inclusive and productive ways forward needed for species-naming conventions. Nat Ecol Evol 7, 1168–1169 (2023).
Skepticism and distrust of the sciences in the US is probably the worst it’s been in my lifetime. This wave of doubt is coming right as I’m trying to make a career for myself in marine science. Jokes aside, the skepticism and incuriosity we’re seeing in society highlight some shortcomings of science communication and a fundamental divide between the scientific community and the average layperson.
I’ve lived in big coastal cities my entire life and often have to remind myself that large swaths of the US, let alone the world, do not have the same background and access to education that I was lucky enough to get. Scientific literature of all kinds is often hidden behind a paywall and filled to the brim with jargon. Even as a college student, I am unable to access scientific publications to which my university does not subscribe. That means I learn about some scientific findings only through news media, which sometimes means there’.The papers that I can access are often very difficult to parse, even for me as a science major, because they assume a high degree of background knowledge and specialized vocabulary.
Scientists are notorious for their jargon. I have mixed feelings about the issue, as it’s a major barrier to entry for understanding the work being done in the world, but it’s also unavoidable and even useful for getting quickly and accurately to the point for an audience that understands it. I also find that the volume of citations in most publications disrupts the flow of the text and makes it more difficult to follow, making science more exclusive.
I believe these two problems - distrust of science, and dense specialized science communication - are related. Science communication must be more effective and widespread so that the average person can engage with science at a level that they can actually understand, and follow their curiosity to learn more. An extreme case is the problem of communicating niche research, but arcane areas of study can produce exciting results. While scientists are trained to couch their results in the context of uncertainty, public science communication can take a more playful approach to engaging readers’ curiosity by highlighting unexpected outcomes. For example, did you know that research on gila monster saliva eventually led to Ozempic (National Institute on Aging)? Or that horseshoe crab blood is used to test vaccines for contamination (British Natural History Museum? Scientists typically focus on the what and how of their work, but interesting and engaging science communication has to focus on the why. By ensuring that new (and already established) scientists have a stronger background in communicating the why of their research, we can more effectively engage the public interest in hearing directly from researchers, and create a better informed populace that knows and trusts its scientists.