Scientific Collections: Threats to Species Survival or an Easy Scapegoat?

Over the past few years, there has been a troubling rise in the number of individuals claiming that scientific collections contribute to species loss. These accusations are often filled with hyperbole, characterizing the practice of field collecting as indiscriminate, unnecessary, and barbaric -- sometimes going so far as to describe it as "slaughter." In a recent piece, the scientific collection of a single bird -- a mustached kingfisher in the Solomon Islands -- was portrayed as the "totally unnecessary killing of this remarkable sentient being."

While debate in science is vital, these criticisms erroneously conflate the individual rights of a single specimen with species survival, vastly overstate the impact of scientific collections on populations, and minimize the specimen's value in helping us understand -- and protect -- the natural world. They tend to overlook several other facts as well: 1) Field research sites require detailed project descriptions and justifications from scientists before they grant collecting permits, and such projects invariably include demonstrations that collections won't impact species survival; 2) scientific institutions require detailed protocols, which always include humane euthanasia methods, before authorizing collections; and 3) an indiscriminate approach to collecting would not only defeat the purpose of conservation but also that of scientific collections themselves, which is to selectively sample organisms from specific locations to ...

Source: Science - The Huffington Post - October 15, 2015 Category: Science Source Type: news