Abstract
The binomial nomenclature system, introduced by Carl Linnaeus in the 18th century, has been fundamental for scientific communication and data management. Despite its utility, some scientific names reflect historical biases and ethical issues, including colonial legacies, racism, sexism, and derogatory terms. Recent debates highlight the need to address these injustices, with arguments both for and against revising such names. Critics argue that extensive revisions could disrupt scientific stability, while proponents emphasize the moral imperative to correct these issues. In this opinion paper, we advocate for the establishment of a dedicated committee within international nomenclature bodies to revise taxonomic names with clear ethical concerns and recommend the use of persistent identifiers to effectively manage and track name changes, mitigating potential disruptions to taxonomy and the science that depends on it. By adopting transparent revision processes and making use of digital technology, we can address ethical issues without remarkable upheaval. Science should not perpetuate historical injustices, and it is vital for the scientific community to proactively address social injustices in nomenclature to mitigate ongoing debates and resistance.