Connect with us

Science

Column: The Hitler beetle, the Trump moth and the raging debate over offensive species names

Published

on

Column: The Hitler beetle, the Trump moth and the raging debate over offensive species names

We are all familiar by now with the movement to eradicate the names of racists and other villains from the buildings, institutions and public spaces where they were once honored.

Caltech excised the name of Robert A. Millikan, its longest-serving president and a known eugenicist, from its campus; Princeton removed Woodrow Wilson’s name from its public policy school; UC removed from its San Francisco law school the name of Serranus Hastings, its original donor, because of his complicity in the California Indian genocides of the 1850s and 1860s.

Statues of Confederate soldiers and generals are being pulled down in a coast-to-coast reckoning with the Jim Crow era.

In which other spheres of human endeavor is anything still named [after] Hitler?

— Botanist Estrela Figueiredo

Advertisement

Although some of these changes were controversial — Millikan and Wilson were once revered figures on their respective campuses — the final decisions seemed almost pre-ordained, once their racist and bigoted views came to be seen as outweighing their career contributions.

Now the issue has moved into a new arena: the names given to species of plants and animals. These scientific identifications are rife with celebrations of some of the nastiest exemplars of the human species.

A Slovenian cave beetle was named Anophthalmus hitleri in 1933 by a German anthropologist who admired the German dictator. A butterfly found in Libya was christened Hypopta mussolinii after the Italian fascist regime invaded that country.

The scientific bodies that oversee biological nomenclature are now grappling with demands for change. Some scientists have argued that the practice of naming plants and animals after real people should cease entirely; others that the names used by the Indigenous peoples who first came into contact with the species should be restored.

And still others say that species names have become etched into natural history and should stay, regardless of the evolution in their social acceptance.

Advertisement

Not all these christenings are designed to be complimentary. In 2017, researchers named a moth newly discovered in California with pale yellow head scales and small genitalia Neopalpa donaldtrumpi.

The following year, a British sustainable construction company paid $25,000 at an auction for the naming rights to a blind, burrowing amphibian and endowed it with the scientific designation Dermophis donaldtrumpi. The firm’s owner said that was a reference to the then-president’s blindly burying his head in the sand over global warming.

Sometimes the motivation of the namers isn’t clear. That was the case with three species named by Cornell scientists after President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in 2005. The scientists swore that the namings were expressions of homage. On the other hand, all three are species of slime-mold beetle.

At least one naming has had an effect that its creator may not have anticipated. The beetle named for Hitler became such a sought-after trophy among present-day Nazis, who poached it via traps set in the Slovenian caves, that it was threatened with extinction. Preserved specimens changed hands for as much as $1,500 each; a Bavarian natural history museum had almost its entire Hitler beetle collection stolen.

Should this cave beetle still be named after Hitler?

Advertisement

(Michael Munich / Wikimedia)

The names of Hitler, Mussolini, Trump and the three government leaders are still part of the creatures’ formal taxonomies, as are those of fauna named after the colonialist Cecil Rhodes and George Hibbert, a British slaver and plantation owner who also happened to be a scientific amateur and collector.

On the face of it, the issue seems simple. “There should be a mechanism in the zoological Code…to allow for replacement names for biological species that have been named after tyrants, dictators, colonialists and slave traders,” a group of anthropologists, paleontologists and botanists wrote last month in the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society.

The controversy has arisen in part because there are few rules governing the naming of newly-discovered species. Convention dictates that the first word is the entity’s genus; the second, often a Latin word indicating the species, must end in “i” if it’s named after a person.

Advertisement

But there are few consistent standards for the species name. The Cornell entomologists who christened the slime mold beetles named other new species after after their wives, Pocahontas, Darth Vader, and the locations where the creatures were first seen. But no universally accepted system exists for reconsidering names that have taken on distasteful connotations.

Botanists have been amenable to renaming species that carry the names of discredited and discreditable individuals; a vote on changes to the naming code is scheduled for a botanical congress next summer. Also at issue for the botanists are a wide variety of plants with scientific names based on an Arabic term for “infidel” that has become a racist slur so noxious that it is treated as hate speech in South Africa and referred to as the “K-word.”

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, which oversees the taxonomy of animal species, has drawn a line in the sand, however. The commission has rejected the very idea of “replacing accepted scientific names because of perceived offensiveness,” its 26 commissioners wrote in the Zoological Journal in January.

Subjecting species names to cultural fashions would undermine the stability in scientific naming, the commissioners stated. “It is well outside the scope of the Commission to assess the morality of persons honored in eponyms [that is, those that incorporate persons’ names] or the potential offensiveness or inappropriateness of certain names.”

The commission’s stand has provoked a vigorous backlash in the scientific community, played out in the pages of the Zoological Journal, which published three responses in August.

Advertisement

Others ridiculed the commissioners’ devotion to “stability”: “Historical reparation is not an emotional or sentimental issue,” they wrote. “It is a rational and historically based attempt to promote equality in human society.”

The controversy seems destined to continue for some time, even as some scientific bodies have taken matters into their own hands.

In 2020, the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists changed the name of its journal on fish and amphibians, known until then as Copeia. The change acknowledged the flagrantly racist views of the journal’s namesake, the 19th century paleontologist Edward Drinker Cope, who placed white males at the pinnacle of human development and listed among “inferior” groups nonwhite races, women and southern European whites.

According to the late Stephen Jay Gould, Cope agitated to ban immigration by Jews and southern Europeans, and particularly despised the Irish. The journal was renamed Ichthyology and Herpetology.

Nonscientific names for animals and plants have been easier to update to confirm with contemporary sensibilities. What was once known as the Jewfish is now the Atlantic Goliath Grouper. The gypsy moth was renamed the spongy moth by the Entomological Society of America last year, and the former Hottentot Teal, a duck, was renamed the Blue-Billed Teal by the American Ornithological Society.

Advertisement

The trend seems to be moving toward striking the old, obnoxious names from scientific rosters. “The biological sciences should not operate outside of societal norms,” wrote the authors of one of the Zoological Journal responses.

One of the critics, botanist Estrela Figueiredo of South Africa’s Nelson Mandela University: “In which other spheres of human endeavor,” she asked, “is anything still named [after] Hitler?”

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Science

Live poultry markets may be source of bird flu virus in San Francisco wastewater

Published

on

Live poultry markets may be source of bird flu virus in San Francisco wastewater

Federal officials suspect that live bird markets in San Francisco may be the source of bird flu virus in area wastewater samples.

Days after health monitors reported the discovery of suspected avian flu viral particles in wastewater treatment plants, federal officials announced that they were looking at poultry markets near the treatment facilities.

Last month, San Francisco Public Health Department officials reported that state investigators had detected H5N1 — the avian flu subtype making its way through U.S. cattle, domestic poultry and wild birds — in two chickens at a live market in May. They also noted they had discovered the virus in city wastewater samples collected during that period.

Two new “hits” of the virus were recorded from wastewater samples collected June 18 and June 26 by WastewaterSCAN, an infectious-disease monitoring network run by researchers at Stanford, Emory University and Verily, Alphabet Inc.’s life sciences organization.

Nirav Shah, principal deputy director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said that although the source of the virus in those samples has not been determined, live poultry markets were a potential culprit.

Advertisement

Hits of the virus were also discovered in wastewater samples from the Bay Area cities of Palo Alto and Richmond. It is unclear if those cities host live bird markets, stores where customers can take a live bird home or have it processed on-site for food.

Steve Lyle, a spokesman for the state’s Department of Food and Agriculture, said live bird markets undergo regular testing for avian influenza.

He said that aside from the May 9 detection in San Francisco, there have been no “other positives in Live Bird Markets throughout the state during this present outbreak of highly-pathogenic avian flu.”

San Francisco’s health department referred all questions to the state.

Even if the state or city had missed a few infected birds, John Korslund, a retired U.S. Department of Agriculture veterinarian epidemiologist, seemed incredulous that a few birds could cause a positive hit in the city’s wastewater.

Advertisement

“Unless you’ve got huge amounts of infected birds — in which case you ought to have some dead birds, too — it’d take a lot of bird poop” to become detectable in a city’s wastewater system, he said.

“But the question still remains: Has anyone done sequencing?” he said. “It makes me want to tear my hair out.”

He said genetic sequencing would help health officials determine the origin of viral particles — whether they came from dairy milk, or from wild birds. Some epidemiologists have voiced concerns about the spread of H5N1 among dairy cows, because the animals could act as a vessel in which bird and human viruses could interact.

However, Alexandria Boehm, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford University and principal investigator and program director for WastewaterSCAN, said her organization is not yet “able to reliably sequence H5 influenza in wastewater. We are working on it, but the methods are not good enough for prime time yet.”

A review of businesses around San Francisco’s southeast wastewater treatment facility indicates a dairy processing plant as well as a warehouse store for a “member-supported community of people that feed raw or cooked fresh food diets to their pets.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Science

Be grateful for what you have. It may help you live longer

Published

on

Be grateful for what you have. It may help you live longer

Death may be inevitable, but that hasn’t stopped health researchers from looking for ways to put it off as long as possible. Their newest candidate is something that’s free, painless, doesn’t taste bad and won’t force you to break a sweat: Gratitude.

A new study of nearly 50,000 older women found that the stronger their feelings of gratitude, the lower their chances of dying over the next three years.

The results are sure to be appreciated by those who are naturally inclined toward giving thanks. Those who aren’t may be grateful to learn that with practice, they might be able to enhance their feelings of gratitude and reap the longevity benefits as well.

“It’s an exciting study,” said Joel Wong, a professor of counseling psychology at the University of Indiana who researches gratitude interventions and practices and wasn’t involved in the new work.

Mounting evidence has linked gratitude with a host of benefits for mental and physical health. People who score higher on measures of gratitude have been found to have better biomarkers for cardiovascular function, immune system inflammation and cholesterol. They are more likely to take their medications, get regular exercise, have healthy sleep habits and follow a balanced diet.

Advertisement

Gratitude is also associated with a lower risk of depression, better social support and having a greater purpose in life, all of which are linked with longevity.

However, this is the first time researchers have directly linked gratitude to a lower risk of earlier death, Wong and others said.

“It’s not surprising, but it’s always good to see empirical research supporting the idea that gratitude is not only good for your mental health but also for living a longer life,” Wong said.

Study leader Ying Chen, an empirical research scientist with the Human Flourishing Program at Harvard University, said she was amazed by the dearth of studies on gratitude and mortality. So she and her colleagues turned to data from the Nurses Health Study, which has been tracking the health and habits of thousands of American women since 1976.

In 2016, those efforts included a test to measure the nurses’ feelings of gratitude. The women were asked to use a seven-point scale to indicate the degree to which they agreed or disagreed with six statements, including “I have so much in life to be thankful for” and “If I had to list everything I felt grateful for, it would be a very long list.”

Advertisement

A total of 49,275 women responded, and the researchers divided them into three roughly equal groups based on their gratitude scores. Compared with the women with the lowest scores, those with the highest scores tended to be younger, more likely to have a spouse or partner, more involved in social and religious groups, and in generally better health, among other differences.

The average age of nurses who answered the gratitude questions was 79, and by the end of 2019, 4,068 of them had died. After accounting for a variety of factors such as the median household income in their census tract, their retirement status, and their involvement in a religious community, Chen and her colleagues found that the nurses with the most gratitude were 29% less likely to have died than the nurses with the least gratitude.

Then they dug deeper by controlling for a range of health issues, including a history of heart disease, stroke, cancer and diabetes. The risk of death for the most grateful women was still 27% lower than for their least grateful counterparts.

When the researchers considered the effects of smoking, drinking, exercise, body mass index and diet quality, the risk of death for the nurses with the most gratitude remained lower, by 21%.

Finally, Chen and her colleagues added in measures of cognitive function, mental health and psychological well-being. Even after accounting for those variables, the mortality risk was 9% lower for nurses with the highest gratitude scores.

Advertisement

The findings were published Wednesday in JAMA Psychiatry.

Although the study shows a clear link between gratitude and longevity, it doesn’t prove that one caused the other. While it’s plausible that gratitude helps people live longer, it’s also possible that being in good health inspires people to feel grateful, or that both are influenced by a third factor that wasn’t accounted for in the study data.

Sonja Lyubomirsky, an experimental social psychologist at UC Riverside who studies gratitude and was not involved in the study, said she suspects all three things are at work.

Another limitation is that all of the study participants were older women, and 97% of them were white. Whether the findings would extend to a more diverse population is unknown, Wong said, “but drawing on theory and research, I don’t see a reason why it wouldn’t.”

There can be downsides to gratitude, the Harvard team noted: If it’s tied to feelings of indebtedness, it can undermine one’s sense of autonomy or accentuate a hierarchical relationship. Lyubomirsky added that it can make people feel like they’re a burden to others, which is particularly dangerous for someone with depression who is feeling suicidal.

Advertisement

But in most cases, gratitude is an emotion worth cultivating, Lyubomirsky said. Clinical trials have shown that gratitude can be enhanced through simple interventions, such as keeping a gratitude journal or writing a thank-you letter and delivering it by hand.

“Gratitude is a skill that you can build,” she said.

And like diet and exercise, it appears to be a modifiable risk factor for better health.

Lyubomirsky has found that teenagers who were randomly assigned to compose letters of gratitude to their parents, teachers or coaches took it upon themselves to eat more fruits and vegetables and cut back on junk food and fast food — a behavior not shared by classmates in a control group. Perhaps after reflecting on the time, money and other resources invested in them, the teens were inspired to protect that investment, she said.

More research will be needed to see whether interventions like these can extend people’s lives, but Chen is optimistic.

Advertisement

“As the evidence accumulates, we’ll have a better understanding of how to effectively enhance gratitude and whether it can meaningfully improve people’s long-term health and well-being,” she said.

Continue Reading

Science

Drug can amplify naloxone's effect and reduce opioid withdrawals, study shows

Published

on

Drug can amplify naloxone's effect and reduce opioid withdrawals, study shows

Naloxone has long been hailed as a life-saving drug in the face of the opioid epidemic. But its capacity to save someone from an overdose can be limited by the potency of the opioid — a person revived by naloxone can still overdose once it wears off.

Stanford researchers have found a companion drug that can enhance naloxone’s effect — and reduce withdrawal symptoms. Their research on mice, led by Stanford University postdoctoral scholar Evan O’Brien, was published today in Nature.

Typically, overdose deaths occur when opioids bind to the part of the brain that controls breathing, slowing it to a stop. Naloxone reverses overdoses by kicking opioids off pain receptors and allowing normal breathing to resume.

However, it is only able to occupy pain receptors for 30 to 90 minutes. For more potent opioids, such as fentanyl, that may not be long enough.

Advertisement

To determine how the naloxone companion drug, which researchers are calling compound 368, might boost naloxone’s effectiveness, researchers conducted an experiment on pain tolerance in mice, said Jay McLaughlin, a professor of pharmacology at the University of Florida. How quickly would mice pull their tails out of hot water, depending on which combination of opioids and treatments they were given?

Mice that were injected with only morphine did not respond to the hot water — given their dulled pain receptors. Mice given morphine and naloxone pulled their tails out within seconds. No surprises yet.

When the dosage of naloxone was reduced and compound 368 was added, the compound was found to amplify naloxone’s effects, as if a regular dose was used. When used on its own, the compound had no effect, indicating that it is only helpful in increasing the potency of naloxone.

What researchers did not expect, however, was that the compound reduced withdrawal symptoms.

McLaughlin said withdrawal is one reason that people who have become physically dependent on opioids may avoid naloxone.

Advertisement

“Opioid withdrawal will not kill you, but I have talked to a number of people who have gone through it, and they have all said the same thing: … ‘I wished I was dead,’” McLaughlin said. “It has a massive range of nasty, horrible effects.”

The idea that the compound could amplify naloxone’s effect at a lower dosage, while limiting withdrawal symptoms, indicates that it may be a “new therapeutic approach” to overdose response, McLaughlin said.

The research team said their next step is to tweak the compound and dosage so that the effects of naloxone last long enough to reverse overdoses of more potent drugs.

Though the compound is not yet ready for human trials, the researchers chose to release their findings in the hope that their peers can double check and improve upon their work, said Susruta Majumdar, another senior author and a professor of anesthesiology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

“We may not be able to get that drug into the clinic, but somebody else may,” Majumdar said. He added: “Let them win the race.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending