About OBS
OBS Members
Publications
What's New
Survey Projects
Biodiversity in Ohio
Academic Biologists
Links
|
 |
Credit Where Credit's Due
by Brian J. Armitage, Ph.D.
Ohio Biological Survey
Vol 7, No. 1, February 1999
Memories of high school English classes and
assemblies come to mind when the subject of attribution
or credit is discussed. One of the major educational
taboos, emphasized in high school, was plagiarism.
Most of us learned very early how to extract information
from the work of others, reword it, and give credit to the
source. Invariably, every time an essay was submitted
with factual statements without a citation, red ink would
appear in the page margin. Message received: "Don't
claim the intellectual property of others as your own,
give them credit." Rewording was its own reward
because it forced you to understand what was said by
another fully, and acted as a challenge to say it better or
more concisely, while also blending in your thoughts
and your own purpose for communicating. In like
manner, the traditional award dinners and award day
assemblies in high school offered an opportunity to
acknowledge the success and/or contributions of those
previously heralded, as well as those who quietly
accomplished their tasks. An opportunity to give credit
where credit's due.
Most biologists working in the areas of biodiversity,
taxonomy, and field biology are not traditionally
funded. Many have spent their personal funds and time
collecting and identifying one or more groups of
organisms, and, assuming they published their results,
providing intellectual fodder for ecologists, behaviorists, and other kinds of biologists. Let us give credit
where credit's due for the dedication and personal funds
expended by these scientists working from a sense of
love for and intense interest in their taxonomic group(s).
They tried to bring order to individual parts of the
world's very diverse biota. Publication of new species
to science was usually a required responsibility
(although some have a tendency to gather to themselves
more new species than they can possibly describe in a
lifetime). Publication of distribution records, especially
range extensions and new state and county records, was
encouraged. However, for the vast majority of effort in
collecting, identifying, and categorizing the Earth's
biodiversity, the only reasonably sure result or proof of
effort was accessioned specimens in a museum or
collection. Some solace could be taken by collectors,
identifiers, and collection managers in that they were
minimally given credit for their expenses and efforts
through their names dutifully noted on specimen labels.
More than a few declared their good intention to
producing a taxonomic magnus opus or two to serve as
stars in their career crown, but never did. And thus, the
specimens and the information they represented lay
quietly on museum shelves awaiting someone to finish
the job started, but not finished, by the survey and
inventory folk.
Following the environmental impact era of the 70s, the
birth of the information age and the maturation of the
Endangered Species Act together created a synergy
during the 80s wherein taxonomic information for
endangered species fell into the hands of primarily nontaxonomists and non-systematists. Let us give credit
where credit's due, for these groups and individuals
compiled the information represented by those myriad
of museum and herbarium specimens and gave them
collective meaning. Initially, at least, the collectors,
identifiers, and institutions maintaining the specimens
were not properly credited. Plagiarism or sour grapes?
Certainly those who toiled to make the specimens
available and who maintain them should be
acknowledged. However, most had more than sufficient opportunity to publish the information. Of far
greater importance is that giving credit to these
individuals and institutions imparts some measure of
credibility to the information. This is particularly true
for identifications. Of what value is any derived
information if the identification is wrong? It is in the
best interests of those harvesting, packaging, and
distributing the information to make sure the specimens
from which it was derived are properly identified.
Knowing who identified the specimens helps this
process of assurance.
Once one set of data is merged with other data and
presented in a new way, sometimes in an interactive
manner, the result belongs to the individual(s) or
group(s) inventive, motivated, and intelligent enough to
give it birth. The world generally advances in steps and
sometime leaps through modifications and synergies,
not miracles and de novo manifestations. One caveat is
required, for we live in a litigious society. Legal
proceedings about living or recently living things,
whether human or non-human, require a body as proof.
While we are speeding ahead with new data
manifestations, abstractions to be sure, there better be
specimens or other types of credible vouchers to back
them up. And that means someone better make sure
there are taxonomists and funded museums, otherwise
the information is so much electronic confetti.
In the 90s we are being inundated with talk about GAP
analysis. A ingapli is the inadequate representation of a
species in areas managed for its long-term survival
(U.S. Geological Survey brochure, 1998). GAP
analysis involves mapping biodiversity information in
relation to properties which have some degree of
stewardship (lands managed for biodiversity by non-governmental organizations, land trusts, and state and
federal agencies) or protection (lands whose uses are
legally limited) associated with them. Initially GAP
analysis was terrestrial in orientation, but now aquatic
GAP analysis is part of the program. Oh, the questions
this will raise, some new and some old. Who will be
acknowledged and to what degree? How current and
valid are the data? Who owns the data or has access
rights to them? Can you wait until we publish this paper
or get this book to press? How much detailed data are
really needed? What do you mean "one-time use," once
it's published by the Feds isn't it public domain? Did
you consider our costs of maintaining the curators and
specimens in your budget? Valid questions, a valid
mission, good intentions for the biota, a noble effort ....
where's King Solomon when we need him?
|
top
|
Policy
Contributions