The Gender Gap in Bacteria Named After Scientists
Source: Getty
Outstanding scientists are frequently recognized with species named in their honor (eponyms). Charles Darwin has over 300 taxa named after him, using several latinizations such as darwini, darwinianus, darwinianum, darwiniana, and darwinensis. However, this practice of professional recognition — like many in the sciences — is fraught with gender bias.
In a recent report published in the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology, Freese and colleagues examined the names of Bacteria and Archaea (i.e. prokaryotes) which honor people. They found that just 14.8% (299/2018) of prokaryotes named after people were named after women (Fig. 1).
The authors also found that while the number of eponyms honoring people of both genders has increased over time, the proportion of those honoring women never exceeded 50% per year (Fig. 2). But even this happened rarely and only in years with a low number of names overall (e.g., one man and one woman). Several years with the smallest percentages occurred quite recently, including 4% in 2015 and 1993, and 0% in 1991. Disappointingly, the gap was still large even in the last decade, with only 17.2% of new eponyms honoring women. “These results show,” the authors write, “that this gender gap […] still exists today in new additions to the field of prokaryotic nomenclature.”
This gap cannot be explained by a lack of female representation in microbiology, as among a list of over 100 women who have made important contributions to the field only 18% have been recognized with an eponym. These results are in line with other analyses of gender disparities in scientific names. Among the plant genus Aloe only 13.7% of eponyms were named after women, and among parasitic helminths just 18.6% were named after women.
Naming of prokaryotes is governed by the International Code of Nomenclature of Prokaryotes. The ICNP discourages scientists from naming a new species after themselves or after a person unrelated to science, but they do offer several options to derive taxonomic names from personal names. (Freese and colleagues restricted their analyses to recognized names beginning in 1980, corresponding to the publication of the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names. Many lost official recognition in 1980, but it is unclear how many were eponyms and what proportion were named after women.)
This report adds to an ever-growing body of evidence that women in science are disadvantaged by systemic biases. Gender bias affects student grading, mentoring, professional hiring, promotion, grant proposal acceptance, and pay. Female scientists are less likely to be credited with authorship on scientific papers, and when they are credited their papers are less likely to be cited.
In light of this disparity, Freese and colleagues encourage scientists to name new species after women microbiologists. “Naming prokaryotes after females could at least increase the visibility of women who have contributed to microbiology or other sciences,” they write. With this added recognition these scientists could become “role models for new generations.”
This report comes amidst an ongoing and contentious debate within the scientific community about the use of eponyms. In fact, the same day this report was published the American Ornithological Society announced it was eliminating eponyms by renaming all birds named after people. Initially, the society set out to only rename birds named in honor of odious historical figures who don’t merit honoring, such as Confederate officers and slaveholders. However, a year later they concluded that the selective, case-by-case evaluation this would be required just wasn’t feasible. Because any decision would be open to bias and disagreement, they decided that all eponyms — even those honoring inoffensive individuals who made valuable contributions to ornithology — would be eliminated. In contrast, a few months earlier another scientific governing body, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, similarly concluded it was too difficult to decide which names should or shouldn’t be changed, but instead used this to justify not changing any name.
In addition to the questionable ethics of honoring controversial historical figures, some scientists argue for the elimination of eponyms because they detract and distract from the qualities of the species being named. For example, in 2020 the AOS changed the name of the McCown’s Longspur to the Thick-Billed Longspur, simultaneously removing associations with a Confederate general and highlighting a notable feature of the bird. On the other hand, others believe that eponyms should be preserved because changing them would fragment the scientific record, with old and new papers referring to the same organism by different names. Similar debates are occurring with other scientific naming conventions, such as the longstanding practice of naming diseases after the location they were discovered (e.g., “Chinavirus,” Ebola virus, West Nile virus).
Freese and colleagues acknowledge this debate, but believe that removing eponyms “seems to throw the baby out with the bathwater.” Naming new prokaryotes after women could increase the visibility of women who have made important contributions to the field, while banning future eponyms would solidify their under-representation as a permanent fixture of the nomenclature. What all sides seem to agree on is that names have power. The question comes in how to best balance that power to increase the visibility of under-recognized scientists, without being offensive and exclusionary in the process.
