The Shifting Sands of Disease Naming: Why the US Reverted to “Monkeypox” and What It Signals
A quiet but significant shift is underway in how we talk about disease. The United States government has begun using “monkeypox” again, despite a global effort led by the World Health Organization (WHO) to adopt the term “mpox” just two years ago. This isn’t a simple oversight; it’s a stark example of how political currents and historical baggage can override scientific consensus, with potentially far-reaching consequences for public health communication and trust.
From Scientific Accuracy to Stigma: The Case for “Mpox”
The original name, “monkeypox,” was misleading from the start. The virus wasn’t primarily spread by monkeys, but by rodents and small mammals. More importantly, the name carried a deeply problematic history. As Dr. Boghuma Titanji, an infectious disease physician and researcher at Emory University, powerfully illustrated, the term was weaponized during the 2022 outbreak, fueling racist and homophobic attacks. “Because I am a black woman, the name monkeypox was co-opted to direct vitriol toward me,” she recounted, detailing the hateful messages she received.
The WHO’s decision to rename the disease “mpox” in November 2022 was a direct response to these concerns. It aimed to reduce stigma, improve public understanding, and facilitate a more effective public health response. The change was widely welcomed by the scientific community and patient advocates, shifting the focus from harmful associations to the medical realities of the virus. You can find the WHO’s official guidelines on disease naming here.
Why the Reversal? A Political Calculation?
So why the sudden return to “monkeypox” by the U.S. Health and Human Services (HHS)? The answer, according to experts, is far from clear. HHS’s statement – simply stating that “monkeypox is the name of the viral disease caused by the monkeypox virus” – is demonstrably inaccurate and dismisses the WHO’s guidance. Dr. Daniel Bausch, an infectious disease expert at the Geneva Graduate Institute, suggests the agency is either misinformed or deliberately disregarding international recommendations.
Many suspect a political motive. Dr. Joseph Cherabiean of Washington University in St. Louis believes the change aligns with a broader pattern of the current administration revisiting controversial terms. It echoes a sentiment that the original name change was perceived as “woke” by some, potentially linked to the previous administration’s strained relationship with the WHO. The lack of transparency surrounding the decision only fuels these suspicions.
The Broader Implications: A Dangerous Precedent?
This isn’t an isolated incident. The history of disease naming is riddled with examples of terms that perpetuate stigma or misrepresent the nature of the illness. MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) and diseases named after geographic locations like Ebola and Marburg continue to carry potentially harmful associations. While a complete overhaul of all disease names would be complex and potentially confusing, the U.S.’s decision to revert to “monkeypox” sets a dangerous precedent.
It undermines the authority of the WHO, erodes public trust in public health messaging, and risks reigniting the very stigmas the name change was intended to address. Furthermore, it highlights a growing tension between scientific consensus and political agendas, particularly when it comes to sensitive issues like infectious disease and social justice.
The Future of Disease Naming: A Call for Consistency and Sensitivity
The “monkeypox”/“mpox” saga underscores the need for a more robust and consistent approach to disease naming. The WHO’s 2015 guidelines, while helpful, are not universally followed. A key challenge lies in balancing scientific accuracy with the potential for social harm. Any future naming conventions must prioritize inclusivity, avoid perpetuating stereotypes, and be developed in consultation with affected communities.
Looking ahead, we can expect increased scrutiny of disease naming practices, particularly as new pathogens emerge. The rise of social media and the rapid spread of misinformation will further amplify the impact of these decisions. Public health officials must be prepared to proactively address potential stigmas and communicate effectively with the public, ensuring that disease names are not barriers to prevention and treatment.
What role should public opinion play in disease naming? Share your thoughts in the comments below!
