Parkinson’s disease, the Heimlich manoeuvre, and nicotine: what do these things have in common? They are all eponyms that have made their way into our common vocabulary. An eponym denotes a concept named after a person, rather than describing it after an action or purpose. In the biosciences, we see eponyms derived from religion, culture, and even Greek mythology.
But one of the most debated types of eponyms are those named after the person who founded a scientific concept. While some may think that they hold a timeless spot in the vocabulary of the scientific world, others think they have lost their relevance and should be replaced with more descriptive nomenclature.
Replacing such a large subset of our vocabulary would be no easy task, but could this change be worth the work?
Do eponyms make science easier or harder?
One of the main debates surrounding eponyms is that they can lack scientific clarity. Unlike a descriptive name, an eponym does not tell you where an anatomical feature is located or show how a disease causes harm.
Descriptive names, usually deriving from Latin or Greek origins, are able to give these indications. For example, from the word ‘appendicitis’, we can gather that the disease originates in the appendix, and the suffix ‘-itis’, tells us the appendix is inflamed. This can be easier for students to memorise, as remembering a name can also explain its function. In a way, the answer is already in the name.
Descriptive names are not only beneficial to students— they can also provide an understanding to those unfamiliar with biological notions. By using an intuitive naming system, people may have a better understanding of what goes on inside their bodies, leading to better medical clarity and communication with patients.
On the other hand, eponyms ostensibly make scientific vocabulary more accessible. It can be argued that complex descriptive names make scientific terminology very convoluted and confusing. In contrast, eponyms can make scientific communication less tedious and much easier to understand, both for people inside and outside of the scientific community.
Instead of memorising an elaborate string of words, eponyms can give a useful shorthand name. Many people may know amyotrophic lateral sclerosis as Lou Gehrig’s disease, as it is much easier to remember a famous baseball player afflicted with a motor neuron disease than it is to work out the origin of each word to describe how the disease works.
Eponyms and honour
Eponyms are widely used as a form of commemoration of the effort put in by researchers and physicians. Their intelligence and hard work can be celebrated through their name forever being associated with what they devoted their life to. In some cases, these people went against the grain and became ostracised from their peers to pursue their discoveries— discoveries that benefit us in the modern day.
Each eponym is rife with the extensive history of sacrifices and commitments scientists made to give us the foundations of scientific knowledge that we build upon today. Holding this rich history within our scientific vocabulary reflects an appreciation of their diligence, and the least we can do is reward their work through the use of eponyms.
However, one problem with commemorative eponyms is that some concepts are named after people who may not have made the most significant contributions to their field of research.
For instance, the disease Takayasu arteritis was named after Dr Mikito Takayasu, who in 1905 described it as chronic inflammation of the aorta and the blood vessels that branch off it. But Dr Takayasu was not the first person to have come across this disease. It was actually first definitively described by Rokushu Yamamoto in 1830, and its discovery is thought to date even further back to a possible observation in 1761 by G.B. Morgagni.
Eponyms perhaps do not credit people fairly for their contributions to a particular area of research. Only one person gets the honour of an eponym, despite the arduous work carried out before or afterwards by dozens of others to fully characterise the concept. One eponym cannot encapsulate this teamwork, and this raises the conflict of who is actually deserving of an eponym.
Eponyms in female science
Whilst being rewarding for some, eponyms do not stand to benefit everyone. In fact, they can be very telling of a scientific community that lacks diversity.
One example of this is the female reproductive system, a system riddled with the names of male scientists. From the fallopian tubes to the Skene’s gland, men have written their name all over the female reproductive system.
While their discoveries may have been pivotal to the fields of anatomy and physiology, these naming conventions are extremely reflective of a time in which men held significant power in the scientific community, and women could only be a part of the research as a test subject. Even if offered an opportunity as an academic, women would likely have been subject to the Matilda effect, in which the scientific discoveries made by women were often attributed to the male scientists working with them.
Particularly in past times, female researchers would never have been celebrated with an eponym. Some women feel that moving away from eponyms, especially in the female reproductive system, may help claim a sense of freedom from the systems that oppressed the women who came before them.
Are eponyms doomed to lack diversity?
Although scientific eponyms of the past have been heavily indicative of a white, male-dominated field, modern eponyms are beginning to diversify. A key example of this is by a nongovernment-funded group called EcoMinga, based in Ecuador. Eponymous names are being given to newly discovered frog species to give recognition to local scientists and indigenous leaders.
Uniquely, they are also conducting naming auctions. Firstly, to give local people the chance to have a species named after them, and secondly, to raise money for journal publications and conservation of the species’ habitats. Snatching away eponymous naming conventions just as they are beginning to diversify could be considered unfair to the new generation of scientists wanting to leave their legacy.
There has been no definitive answer as to whether eponyms should be abolished within the sciences. Some think their prevalence is too vast and ingrained to be removed from all written work, whilst others think their existence is old-fashioned and unnecessary.
Despite this ongoing debate, eponyms do bring awareness to the power that words can hold in the sciences. Naming conventions within science are not arbitrary— they convey the historical and societal backgrounds in which these discoveries were made.
But does this make eponyms timeless? Or are they simply a thing of the past?
