[Taxacom] another ebay auction of naming rights
Doug Yanega
dyanega at ucr.edu
Mon Oct 19 16:03:05 CDT 2015
On 10/19/15 10:42 AM, John Grehan wrote:
> I wonder if the
> "biologist" Dave Goulson is a taxonomist, and if so, presumably he has all
> the funding he needs so he does not have to contemplate such possibilities.
>
> John Grehan
>
FYI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Goulson
I'm not disputing the sorry state of taxonomy funding, but I also don't
find the present debate to be as black-and-white as some see it. If a
new species is *actually new*, I have no other objective concern beyond
that, either as a taxonomist or as an ICZN Commissioner. HOWEVER, that
being said, if the creation of a new taxon name involves - at some level
- actions which can be construed as genuinely unethical, then every
scientist, regardless of discipline, should be concerned. There is
nothing *inherently* unethical in auctioning off a name, so I see no
inherent problem. But if the species involved is, say, one which someone
else was already in the process of naming, or if the winning bidder
attempts to impose a name which is deliberately offensive (to a named
person, nation, or ethnic group), then that sort of subjective concern
would change the equation. Neither a blanket prohibition nor a carte
blanche approach is suitable; auctions, like many things, need to be
viewed primarily *case-by-case*, with all the details known up front.
The *only* generalized concern (other than validity of taxa, and ethics)
I think we might need to address as a community is one I've alluded to
other times this topic has come up: namely, given that the specimens
that form the basis of modern taxonomy are, primarily, borrowed
property, would we (or could we, or should we) collectively draw a line
as to who benefits from the proceeds of a name sale, and how much??
Right now, if a taxonomist has an NSF grant and does a revision using
borrowed specimens, they don't give any of that NSF money to the
institutions whose specimens they borrowed - but bear in mind that those
NSF funds do not cover much more than personal support for the
taxonomist and maybe a student or two, plus overhead; no one gets
personally rich writing NSF grants. If the situation were changed so
that same taxonomist derived all their financial support by auctioning
names, would that be any different? Would it make a difference if an
auction was performed without the express permission of the institution
that owned the holotype? Would it matter if the author were making a
profit *above and beyond* the level of personal support? Would this
possibly cause a taxonomist to borrow specimens selectively from
institutions who loan specimens without any strings attached, versus
institutions that pre-emptively put policies in place requiring
profit-sharing (in cases where there was profit)? Would it breed
destructive professional jealousy if dinosaur and vertebrate and
butterfly name auctions raked in huge amounts of money, while other
taxonomic disciplines couldn't even get enough public interest to recoup
their costs (and also thereby further "drain" potential taxonomists away
from the less glamorous taxa)?
My answer, to all of these, is "*It might*." In that respect, I would
say that it is questions like these that might be worth our time
discussing, rather than the present theme. Basically, I feel the
discussion would be more constructive if it were rephrased as "Can we
benefit from name auctions AND do so without disrupting or compromising
good science across all our disciplines?" Name auctions are here, and
have been for some time, so if there is a need for discussion, then
let's focus on ways to maximize their positive impacts, and minimize the
negative.
Sincerely,
--
Doug Yanega Dept. of Entomology Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314 skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
"There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list