摘要：After considerable struggle with our pride, we have decided that eponymy is always bad practice- even when one is himself the eponym. Therefore, although we are deeply appreciative of the honor that was undoubtedly intended, we feel we must protest the designation of a MLA Committee as the "Ad Hoc Committee on the Orr-Pings Report" and, indeed, all reference to the "Orr-Pings" report (see BULLETIN 54: 381- 382, Oct. 1966). This case provides an excellent example of the problems eponymy can cause- if anyone should happen to be curious about the document referred to, he would find it difficult, if not impossible, to identify by this name. Even worse, perhaps, the honor bestowed is undeserved, as we suspect it often is. The document containing the recommendation that the Committee was appointed to consider is correctly cited as "National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council. Communication Problems in Biomedical Research: Supplement to a report submitted on 31 October 1963 to the Director, National Institutes of Health, National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 10 March 1964." The recommendation appears on pages 1-8 and 1-9 of this document, which contains a series of eight "staff papers" issued as a supplement to the official NAS-NRC Report.
