Does anyone know how the "s" at the end of "materials" in "materials science" came about? It seems like "material science" would be equivalent, and is more natural to say aloud. For comparison with a similar phrase, we usually say "computer science" instead of "computers science". Does anyone know the etymology?

9 Answers 9


It's materials science because material is also an adjective. The phrase material science, as opposed to, say, spiritual science, was used before people started studying the science of materials. Consider this Ngram:

enter image description here

If you search in Google Books for "material science" before 1910, you get hits like

What does material science know about things of the soul?
The world of spirit outside material science.
Material science takes up the objects of the world and interprets them.

Presumably, the science of materials was named materials science to avoid confusion with this phrase.

  • 2
    I think this answer is accurate, but even if the phrase "material science" had not been used much in the past, it would still be confusing simply because "material" is, as you said, an adjective as well as a noun, making the construct ambiguous or misleading.
    – LarsH
    Jan 4, 2012 at 22:22

The problem with the word material is that it is also an adjective. I suspect that material scientists didn't like being contrasted with immaterial scientists, so they added an s to material.


The singular form material means the matter from which a thing is or can be made. In the phrase materials science there are different elements involved, which can all be studied separately due to their different properties.

On the other hand, in your other example, computer science doesn't require plural as the computer is a specific type of machine despite its many versions and various models.

  • Good point, +1. Also, computer science is not so much the study of different kinds of computers and their properties (unlike materials science), but of information, computation, models, and algorithms.
    – LarsH
    Jan 4, 2012 at 22:26
  • 4
    This explanation is wrong. One says "plant taxonomy", not *"plants taxonomy", even though the whole point of taxonomy is to study and classify the various kinds of plants! Jul 9, 2012 at 1:54
  • As Mechanical snail says, this doesn’t hold up. Noun adjuncts in English are by default singular, no matter if they refer to singular or plural notions. Exceptions to this rule are twofold: (1) occasionally where irregular plurals are concerned (see this question); and (2) where the plural is absolutely needed—for example when the singular could/would be confused with an adjective as in this case. Nov 26, 2016 at 11:56

One occasionally sees the term "material science." But most people say "materials science" because it is the science of materials, not just some particular material.

  • 2
    "Computer science" is the study of computers, not some particular computer. But it's not *"computers science". Jul 9, 2012 at 1:55
  • 'Donkey sanctuary' but not 'dog home'. Jul 21 at 13:57

The answer from Peter Shor is very interesting, and seems to be the most feasible in the thread. I too would suspect an historic root, but a different one stemming from the field's development within academia. Before we get to that, let's run through what is essentially a thread summary and some possible origins suggested for this seemingly unnecessary 's.'

Possible Origins

  1. It's linguistically necessary to stress that multiple materials are studied.

As pointed out by Mechanical Snail with 'plant taxonomy,' this explanation is undermined by comparison to linguistically analogous field names for which no pluralization is required. Even if Mechanical Snail's second example of 'computer science' does not hold up, one can find many others that do (e.g. chemical engineering, plant science, particle physics). An example that I like to bring up in relation to this possible root is the common designation 'materials design.' Would you say 'machines design,' 'interiors design,' or any other such variant? No, because the 's' is superfluous unless there's another reason to include it, which leads to...

  1. Distinguishing between the meanings of 'material,' i.e.; material as the opposite of spiritual, and material as a type of matter.

Here's where Peter Shor's take comes into play, and although he's got some interesting evidence, I'm not sold! His argument is that the term material could also be a dialectic phrase used in contrast with 'spiritual' sciences, and relies in my opinion too flimsily on a single quote (please correct me if there's more) and the patently false statement that people hadn't been formally studying the science of materials before the 1960's. Sorry if I've misunderstood exactly when you would suggest people started studying the science of materials, it's unclear what you think there. Although Peter Shor's take is still feasible as a contributing factor, I think there's too little evidence for it when confronted by the next possible origin.

  1. The advancement of the field from metallurgical research to broader 'materials' research.

Before the 1960's, many university divisions that were conducting what was essentially material(s) research were simply named 'metallurgy' departments, reflecting the primary focus of the field at the time. As the space race brought about scientific developments such as composites and 'space age' polymers, the necessity to change the names of the university departments responsible for the developments became clear. Peter Shor's graph shows the spike in the usage of 'materials science' that would be expected if this origin is accepted, as this major boom in material(s) science research began in approximately 1955, when Northwestern University established the first 'materials' science (and engineering) department. (http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2005/10/materials.html)

So! Is the argument dead? Not in the least. It would be very interesting to see further digging around into Peter Shor's proposed origin, and I could be more thorough in my background research as well. What I think can be taken away from this thread is that the 's' in materials science is not linguistically required, but likely has an historic origin. I hope this post was helpful.

  • I didn't give a single quote; I gave three quotes. And there are lots more. Nov 27, 2016 at 17:48

Let's start off with an example. EXAMPLE: "Mr. Perry Mason, I have some information that may be MATERIAL (no S) to your court case." In this sense the word MATERIAL could mean Important, Pertinent, etc. This has an entirely different meaning as to how it is used in Materials (Note the "S") Science. So yes, the Part of Speech of the English language can make a difference in the spelling & definition of a certain word in some cases.

The example containing the word SPIRITUAL was a good one. I believe in the spiritual myself as a Christian while many people don't. For them they have to have something that is tangible. Materials fall into this at the macro level even though these same materials are intangible at the nano level. Spiritual things and material things are kinda opposites of each other. So a Material(s) Scientist would normally NOT be involved with the spiritual.

I worked for this guy, now deceased, while I was in college. Microbiology was a required subject which my Boss hated. He was definitely old, old school. He thought "if you can't see it (germs, viruses, etc), it don't exist." I wonder how he would feel now that the Coronavirus pandemic is going on? There are many things in this world we know exists but we can't see. Take radioactivity and gravity for instance.

BOTTOM LINE: I belong in the Materials (with the "S") Science camp. I think it makes an important distinction in the meaning of MATERIAL as in the Perry Mason example plus not being involved with the spiritual AND the meaning of MATERIALS (with the "S") Science.


If you are searching both versions with Google, you are get almost double the amount of hits for material science (without s). Websters is listing only the with-s version. Other dictionaries don't list any. For me the explanation that material would also be an adjective makes most sense. I go with Materials Science....

  • I get over eight times as many hits (raw data) in a Google search for "materials science" -"material science" as I see in one for "material science" -"materials science". Jul 21 at 14:01

"Materials science" seems more like the plural form of "material science". If you are studying about many materials, then you will use materials science rather than material science.


Materials science means investigating various areas of science and engineering. Since it is not restricted to one particular matter, it's called materials. It studies many areas of science rather than just one.

  • 1
    Materials science is the science of materials or matter, i.e., the stuff that things are made out of. It's not the science of various areas of science and engineering. Jan 4, 2012 at 13:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.