This articleneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Transfermium Wars" – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(June 2010) (Learn how and when to remove this message)

The names for the chemical elements 104 to 106 were the subject of a major controversy starting in the 1960s, described by some nuclear chemists as theTransfermium Wars^[1][2] because it concerned the elements followingfermium (element 100) on theperiodic table.

This controversy arose from disputes between American scientists and Soviet scientists as to which had first isolated these elements. The final resolution of this controversy in 1997 also decided the names of elements 107 to 109.

By convention, naming rights for newly discovered chemical elements go to their discoverers. For elements 104, 105, and 106, there was a controversy between Soviet researchers at theJoint Institute for Nuclear Research and American researchers atLawrence Berkeley National Laboratory regarding which group had discovered them first. Both parties suggested their own names for elements 104 and 105, not recognizing the other's name.

The American name ofseaborgium for element 106 was also objectionable to some, because it referred to American chemistGlenn T. Seaborg who was still alive at the time this name was proposed.^[3] (Einsteinium andfermium had also been proposed as names of new elements whileAlbert Einstein andEnrico Fermi were still living, but only made public after their deaths, due toCold War secrecy.)

The two principal groups which were involved in the conflict over element naming were:

• An American group atLawrence Berkeley Laboratory.
• A Russian group atJoint Institute for Nuclear Research inDubna.

and, as a kind of arbiter,

• TheIUPAC Commission on Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry, which introduced its own proposal to the IUPAC General Assembly.

The German group at theGesellschaft für Schwerionenforschung (GSI) inDarmstadt, who had (undisputedly) discovered elements 107 to 109, were dragged into the controversy when the Commission suggested that the name "hahnium", proposed for element 105 by the Americans, be used for GSI's element 108 instead.

The names suggested for the elements 107 to 109 by the German group were:^[4]

In 1994, the IUPAC Commission on Nomenclature of Inorganic Chemistry proposed the following names:

This attempted to resolve the dispute by sharing the namings of the disputed elements between Russians and Americans, replacing the name for 104 with one honoring theDubna research center, and not naming 106 after Seaborg.

This solution drew objections from theAmerican Chemical Society (ACS) on the grounds that the right of the American group to propose the name for element 106 was not in question, and that group should have the right to name the element. Indeed,IUPAC decided that the credit for the discovery of element 106 should be awarded to Berkeley.

Along the same lines, the German group protested against naming element 108 by the American suggestion "hahnium", mentioning the long-standing convention that an element is named by its discoverers.^[5]

In addition, given that many American books had already used rutherfordium and hahnium for 104 and 105, the ACS objected to those names being used for other elements.

In 1995, IUPAC abandoned the controversial rule and established a committee of national representatives aimed at finding a compromise. They suggestedseaborgium for element 106 in exchange for the removal of all the other American proposals, except for the established namelawrencium for element 103. The equally entrenched namenobelium for element 102 was replaced byflerovium afterGeorgy Flyorov, following the recognition by the 1993 report that that element had been first synthesized in Dubna. This was rejected by American scientists and the decision was retracted.^[6] The nameflerovium was later used forelement 114.^[7]

In 1996, IUPAC held another meeting, reconsidered all names in hand, and accepted another set of recommendations; finally, it was approved and published in 1997 on the 39th IUPAC General Assembly inGeneva, Switzerland.^[8] Element 105 was nameddubnium (Db), afterDubna in Russia, the location of the JINR; the American suggestions were used for elements 102, 103, 104, and 106. The namedubnium had been used for element 104 in the previous IUPAC recommendation. The American scientists "reluctantly" approved this decision.^[9] IUPAC pointed out that the Berkeley laboratory had already been recognized several times, in the naming ofberkelium,californium, andamericium, and that the acceptance of the namesrutherfordium andseaborgium for elements 104 and 106 should be offset by recognizing JINR's contributions to the discovery of elements 104, 105, and 106.^[10]

The following names were agreed in 1997 on the 39th IUPAC General Assembly inGeneva, Switzerland:

Thus, the convention of the discoverer's right to name their elements was respected for elements 106 to 109,^[11] and the two disputed claims were "shared" between the two opponents.

In some countries uninvolved in the dispute, such as Bulgaria^[12], Poland, Denmark,^[13] India,^[14] and Indonesia,^[15] bothkurchatovium for element 104 andhahnium for element 105 were used until 1997.

• List of chemical element name etymologies
• List of chemical element naming controversies (includes Z = 23, 41, 70, 71, 74)
• Systematic element name
• Chemical nomenclature

• Elementymology & Elements Multidict
• Picture of a Seaborgium card autographed by Seaborg

• 20th century in science
• Naming of chemical elements
• Chemical nomenclature
• History of chemistry
• History of physics
• Rutherfordium
• Dubnium
• Seaborgium
• Bohrium
• Hassium
• Meitnerium
• Discovery and invention controversies
• Naming controversies
• Soviet Union–United States relations
• Scientific rivalry

• Webarchive template wayback links
• Articles with short description
• Short description is different from Wikidata
• Articles needing additional references from June 2010
• All articles needing additional references