The World Health Organisation, until recently, was a fairly obscure body for most members of the public. They might have known that it existed but particularly in the developed world it had minimal interaction with most peoples’ lives. In 2019 and 2020, that obviously changed.  The rise of Covid brought the organisation to the fore, leading the international effort against the pandemic. Although Covid is now somewhat less of a concern than it was, the WHO and health leaders have slipped straight from that crisis into another.

The new threat is from monkeypox, a relative of the now eliminated smallpox virus. Previously largely confined to Central and West Africa, since the first case was detected in London on 6^th May 2022 the virus has spread to at least 82 countries, and caused some alarm amongst the most affected communities. The virus was first named in 1958 before the modern practices on naming diseases were adopted, and the responsibility handed to the WHO. Modern practices state that diseases should be given names which “avoid causing offense to any cultural, social, national, regional, professional, or ethnic groups, and minimize any negative impact on trade, travel, tourism or animal welfare”, the last of those obviously being the point of concern here.

The naming of viruses and diseases can be quite a sensitive topic. In the past, it has often had significant political connotations. The most obvious example of this would be the Spanish Flu in 1918, which in actuality had few links to Spain, first appearing in the USA. The “Spanish flu” title became attached to it because the press in neutral Spain was the only place not subject to press restrictions due to the war, so could freely report outbreaks which made it seem as if it had been the epicentre. In more recent times we’ve seen similar things- who could forget President Trump’s insistence on calling Covid the “China virus”, and the ensuing rise in anti-Asian rhetoric in America?

The point is names are important and can have power. There is a reason that there is a focus on neutrality in modern naming conventions. When a new name is required, as they are doing with monkeypox, the WHO opens a consultation on naming, inviting people to submit suggestions, which will then be decided on by the International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses. The consultation is not a fully open one, presumably to protect us from the usual foibles of the internet- who could forget ‘Boaty McBoatface’? Obviously some degree of protection of dignity is necessary when discussing something causing significant harm to individuals and communities.

This is a place where this more restricted consultation is justified, and in many ways this is a internal consultation for healthcare and medical professionals, even if it is technically open to the general public. Although naming something might be seen to be less of a priority than fixing the problem, it’s important to deal with these things especially when a specific community (in this case the male gay community) is being more greatly affected than any other. Not doing so can help open the gates to abuse and bigotry.

Naming things seems to have become something of a locus for consultation and engagement in recent years, albeit in different contexts. Within the UK we’ve seen the ‘culture war’ contests over naming of buildings and facilities and the proposed reforms to consultation on street naming. It’s also interesting to see how things change over time. Covid is a good example of this- initially it was generally referred to as ‘Coronavirus’, but over time as broadcasters and media changed their presentation to match the new official name, the terminology coalesced round “Covid”. It will be interesting to see whether the same happens with monkeypox. We’ll see what the new name is at the end of the consultation.