Bowing
After 20-plus years of collecting and studying minerals, Christopher Emproto noticed a pattern. Many minerals were eponymous, meaning they were named for people, and he could often find photos of the people they were named after. The pattern was in these photos, not the minerals themselves: “I kept noticing that a lot of these photos looked like the same type of person,” Emproto said. They were mostly older white men.
“As a mineralogist who cares about [equity], that’s very embarrassing.”
This observation sparked a study published recently in American Mineralogist that analyzed how the more than 6,000 minerals known to science got their names. Emproto is currently a mineralogist at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh, but he worked on the study when he was a Ph.D. student at the University of Michigan.
Emproto and his colleagues found that of the 2,738 minerals named for people, those named for men outnumbered those named for women by more than 15 to 1.
And even though about 100 new mineral names are approved every year, that ratio is unlikely to equal out, even as the field of mineralogy becomes more diverse, according to the study. “As a mineralogist who cares about [equity], that’s very embarrassing,” Emproto said.
What’s in a Namesake?
The discoverer of a new mineral is tasked with naming it. Names often reflect the location where the mineral was discovered (e.g., andalusite for Andalucia, Spain) or reference the mineral’s composition (e.g., siderite for sideros, the Greek word for iron). And some discoverers bestow the honor on themselves, friends, or spouses.
The practice of naming minerals for people has grown dramatically through time. By categorizing all mineral names approved by the International Mineralogical Association (IMA), the scientists found that about 54% are mineral eponyms. But of the 2,738 people honored with mineral names, only 167 (6.1%) are women, and 129 (4.7%) of those are scientists. (Twenty-three mineral eponyms are shared between a man and a woman.)
“As someone with a geology degree who had to learn lots of mineral names, it came as a surprise to me just how many minerals are named after people and how few of those minerals are named after female scientists,” said Sarah Boulton, a University of Plymouth geoscientist who wasn’t involved in the study.
Because the number of women entering the geosciences has almost doubled since 1985, the group expected the number of minerals named after women to have also risen steadily. However, they saw that the increase in the rate that minerals were being named after women slowed significantly after around 1985. In the years since, women’s representation has plateaued at about 10% for new mineral namesakes each year.
“I think a lot of people have this idea that we’ve been making steady progress toward equity, but if that were the case, then we wouldn’t see a flatlining curve.”
“I think a lot of people have this idea that we’ve been making steady progress toward equity, but if that were the case, then we wouldn’t see a flatlining curve,” Emproto said. “That was actually the most surprising result of the entire study.”
Boulton said she suspects this effect might be related to fewer women being afforded positions in which they are more likely to have minerals named after them. Although most mineral eponyms were named for scientists, no minerals were named after graduate students and, on average, people were 60 years old when they had a mineral named for them. “Even now, it’s much harder for women to become senior scientists and to stay senior scientists,” she said.
According to the study’s findings, naming trends are variable worldwide. For example, Russian women account for about 43% of all women honored with mineral names, despite Russians constituting less than 15% of all mineral namesakes. Americans account for 16% of minerals named after women.
Emproto said that the large representation of Russian women likely reflects the Soviet Union’s emphasis on women’s participation in sciences. In Germany, Italy, France, and the United Kingdom, women represent less than 4% of mineral namesakes from each country.
A Challenging Path to Parity
On the basis of current trends, the scientists calculated that gender parity in mineral names wouldn’t be achieved until 2266. Estimates suggest that there may not be enough undiscovered minerals in Earth’s crust to reach that parity.
In the future, Emproto would like to investigate the impact of colonialism on mineral naming. He said that even for minerals discovered outside Europe, mineral nomenclature is still dominated by European men. “You can see, plain as day, who has been locked out of doing the science on the natural resources on their land.”
As part of Emproto’s current research project, he has helped discover new minerals himself. Most recently, he’s helped name two minerals that are awaiting approval from IMA. Both suggested names reflect the minerals’ physical properties: Magselite is a magnesium selenite hexahydrate, and blueridgeite is blue in color and found in the Blue Ridge Mountains.
As a young collector, he wanted a mineral named for himself, but through his research, he started to dislike the idea of mineral eponyms. “To feel ownership over something like that, it feels kind of wrong,” he said.
—Andrew Chapman (@andrew7chapman), Science Writer
