Andrea, reading your post for the second time, this line leapt out at me: "This herpetologist advanced in his career at a different time, when individuals didn’t matter, when people couldn’t possibly have an impact on the environment, because the world is so big, and we are so small.⁷"
Although your essay addresses specific approaches to data collection, it brings up larger issues: can just one person or action make a difference in the world we live in today? I'm thinking of scientists I know and have worked with as a volunteer around here in the Pacific Northwest who devote their lives to specific species and research and to training and mentoring young people, including kids, to revere the environment and perhaps choose careers that will in turn help change the world for the better. Yes, the world is big and we are so small, but people like my friends here and you are making a difference.
I'm not a scientist and I'm not inclined that way but I do remember that awful event in school when we were forced to dissect a frog. To what end, I can't remember. I do remember that it sickened me and closed me off from whatever they were trying to teach me. I have a problem with violence against anyone or anything for any reason, and I'm glad to see that this is an issue with scientists. Thanks for this Andrea.
Most of my experience with field biologists has been with the large mammal kind. I guess I’m glad for that! No one was shooting bighorn sheep to study them. The placement of trackers, which involved tranquilization and helicopter rides, was controversial enough.
This is a very thoughtful essay, thanks! It really resonates with me as taxonomist and conservationist specializing in herpetology. Museum specimens are crucially important, of course, as the author and Allie Byrne (whom I do not know personally) and I have collected and deposited a great many specimens in my career, early-on in my career more specifically. I have deposited almost none that were found alive (e.g., not including salvaged roadkills, etc.) in many years now. There's a variety of reasons for that and one of them is simply that I don't care to euthanize animals any more. Yet, I feel like the material I deposited earlier represents a solid contribution to science. Anywhere I worked, for example, in the 1990s is documented with a representation of what I encountered there. So, those are historical records and specimens to document a time and place biologically. When I think about really important break-through papers, like the ability to use museum collections for DNA (for systematics or chytrid detection), or to simply use the collections to document that a population did actually exist in some time frame, those collections are invaluable---the very core purpose of natural history collections. So, in that sense, I am very grateful for the diligent collectors of previous generations. My contributions to science and conservation have made abundant use of their efforts. What I fear is that people in future generations will have access to all of the older material that I have also used to answer currently unimaginable interesting questions and using unheard of techniques. But, if their questions involve time series (like the breakthrough work on amphibian chytrid fungus), there may be gaps in, for examples, the 2020s as field biologists A) become fewer, B) and collections become rarer. A question I think about sometimes: Am I robbing future generations of important documentation because I no longer contribute substantially to collections to document this era of my career? I have read all the papers showing that digital images, voice recordings, videos, and non-lethal DNA samples can replace traditional specimens. There is some merit to those arguments, but they still lack some opportunities (not to mention questions and technologies we cannot yet imagine). A great example was a nice piece of work by Hamed (below) that used historical and current salamander collections to show that mercury contamination in a watershed has DECREASED significantly over time. I read it as a testament to the effectiveness and legacy of the Ecology Movement of early 70s (EPA, Clean Water Act, etc.). Just an example, and probably preaching to the choir here.
But my main point is to ponder: "Am I conflicted about my role as a collector?" The answer is "Yes, I am so." Thanks for listening and for creating this interesting site and wonderful posting !
Hamed, M.K., 2014. Impacts of climate change, human land use, and mercury contamination on Southern Appalachian Plethodontid salamanders.
You might be interested in this: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/12/science/mushroom-frog-growth.html
Andrea, reading your post for the second time, this line leapt out at me: "This herpetologist advanced in his career at a different time, when individuals didn’t matter, when people couldn’t possibly have an impact on the environment, because the world is so big, and we are so small.⁷"
Although your essay addresses specific approaches to data collection, it brings up larger issues: can just one person or action make a difference in the world we live in today? I'm thinking of scientists I know and have worked with as a volunteer around here in the Pacific Northwest who devote their lives to specific species and research and to training and mentoring young people, including kids, to revere the environment and perhaps choose careers that will in turn help change the world for the better. Yes, the world is big and we are so small, but people like my friends here and you are making a difference.
I'm not a scientist and I'm not inclined that way but I do remember that awful event in school when we were forced to dissect a frog. To what end, I can't remember. I do remember that it sickened me and closed me off from whatever they were trying to teach me. I have a problem with violence against anyone or anything for any reason, and I'm glad to see that this is an issue with scientists. Thanks for this Andrea.
Most of my experience with field biologists has been with the large mammal kind. I guess I’m glad for that! No one was shooting bighorn sheep to study them. The placement of trackers, which involved tranquilization and helicopter rides, was controversial enough.
This is a very thoughtful essay, thanks! It really resonates with me as taxonomist and conservationist specializing in herpetology. Museum specimens are crucially important, of course, as the author and Allie Byrne (whom I do not know personally) and I have collected and deposited a great many specimens in my career, early-on in my career more specifically. I have deposited almost none that were found alive (e.g., not including salvaged roadkills, etc.) in many years now. There's a variety of reasons for that and one of them is simply that I don't care to euthanize animals any more. Yet, I feel like the material I deposited earlier represents a solid contribution to science. Anywhere I worked, for example, in the 1990s is documented with a representation of what I encountered there. So, those are historical records and specimens to document a time and place biologically. When I think about really important break-through papers, like the ability to use museum collections for DNA (for systematics or chytrid detection), or to simply use the collections to document that a population did actually exist in some time frame, those collections are invaluable---the very core purpose of natural history collections. So, in that sense, I am very grateful for the diligent collectors of previous generations. My contributions to science and conservation have made abundant use of their efforts. What I fear is that people in future generations will have access to all of the older material that I have also used to answer currently unimaginable interesting questions and using unheard of techniques. But, if their questions involve time series (like the breakthrough work on amphibian chytrid fungus), there may be gaps in, for examples, the 2020s as field biologists A) become fewer, B) and collections become rarer. A question I think about sometimes: Am I robbing future generations of important documentation because I no longer contribute substantially to collections to document this era of my career? I have read all the papers showing that digital images, voice recordings, videos, and non-lethal DNA samples can replace traditional specimens. There is some merit to those arguments, but they still lack some opportunities (not to mention questions and technologies we cannot yet imagine). A great example was a nice piece of work by Hamed (below) that used historical and current salamander collections to show that mercury contamination in a watershed has DECREASED significantly over time. I read it as a testament to the effectiveness and legacy of the Ecology Movement of early 70s (EPA, Clean Water Act, etc.). Just an example, and probably preaching to the choir here.
But my main point is to ponder: "Am I conflicted about my role as a collector?" The answer is "Yes, I am so." Thanks for listening and for creating this interesting site and wonderful posting !
Hamed, M.K., 2014. Impacts of climate change, human land use, and mercury contamination on Southern Appalachian Plethodontid salamanders.