Herp collecting surveys

Dedicated exclusively to field herping.

Moderator: Scott Waters

Post Reply
yuesam
Posts: 19
Joined: October 13th, 2014, 11:13 am

Herp collecting surveys

Post by yuesam »

Don't know if this topic has been brought up before, but I just want discuss scientific 'collecting surveys' for herps. From my own experience and talking with others, surveyers pretty much chuck every frog they find into ziplock bags. After a few weeks, bags stuffed with frogs are brought back to the lab, and if they havent died from stress or emaciation, they are killed "humanely" and then specimen-ed. I felt it is disgusting and totally unnecessary to subject the frogs to long and horrendous welfare conditions. Many specimens are never even used, and those that do get used are usually for ID purposes - but this absolutely doesn't justify killing hundreds of frogs! You can ID the poor thing from a single drop of blood!

I'm writing this post to promote change in this system. The International Code for Zoological Nomenclature defines specimen as "an example of an animal..., work of an animal, or a part of these". So it is scientifically legit to survey frogs from just photos and blood or tissue samples for DNA. Better yet, in situ shots can give clues to ecology and behavior that dead frogs can't. The last point I want to make is this: researchers who convince rural communities that scientific collecting is justified while hunting and poaching should be banned are inconsistent and setting a terrible example. What's the difference?

Why is everyone still specimening herps when there are less invasive, non-lethal alternatives? Is it really necessary to have specimens? Please discuss
User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1234
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 9:49 pm

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by Bryan Hamilton »

Even though this seems to be an obvious trolling attempt, I'll humor it and give a genuine response.

Having been on many of these expeditions, I disagree with your observations and your conclusions. Most collectors euthanize their specimens in the field and prep them right there. This is important to preserve valuable information such as reproductive condition and stomach contents. Most scientists are acting under an Animal Care and Use protocol that dictates humane treatment and handling of the specimens. I also don't know anyone that just throws specimens in the freezer (other than roadkill). Tissues get archived in freezers but whole specimens are almost always carefully cataloged and stored in ethanol, for all eternity we hope....

As far as using DNA to identify specimens from a drop of blood, although its theoretically possible, its not very practical. I think you're talking about DNA barcoding which hasn't worked out as well as hoped. As you point out, many specimens collected are new species and some of the most important information comes from the whole specimen. I'm not saying that photos and DNA and careful field observation aren't valuable but they go hand in hand with a whole specimen.


You really haven't shed any light on the issue. You have an opinion that seems to be based on a single bad experience and from that you question the validity of ALL scientific collecting? That's pretty poor form. Museum specimens are the backbone of herpetology and natural history. Where would we be without them? We still need them desperately, now more than ever.

This debate has recently gone on the high -level scientific literature, stated much more elegantly than you or I. This blog gives a good summary of why we still need to collect live, whole specimens:

http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=16957
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by gbin »

Bryan Hamilton wrote:... this seems to be an obvious trolling attempt...
Indeed.

Gerry
User avatar
Noah M
Posts: 2293
Joined: November 3rd, 2012, 7:00 pm
Location: Gainesville, FL
Contact:

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by Noah M »

Why is everyone still using this lousy outdated method
The researchers that I know that did genetic work on frogs collected tadpoles, took tissue samples from said tadpoles on site, and safely released the tadpoles back into the location they were netted. As far as I am aware, no animals were seriously hurt.

I even asked why adults were not sought (as was the case in your example). The answer was efficiency. One good scoop of a dipnet can capture way more samples of tadpoles than adult frogs.

So not everyone is using the method described.

On another note: I would be more thoughtful about what you say and how you say it. You use a lot of loaded language and if you plan to have a honest discussion about something, your approach is almost certain to fail.
yuesam
Posts: 19
Joined: October 13th, 2014, 11:13 am

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by yuesam »

Sorry, edited to make it sound nicer, though I'm still against specimen-ing unless there is a strong purpose.
Most collectors euthanize their specimens in the field and prep them right there.
That I can accept, but are you sure most collectors do that? Setting up a lab in the field takes time, effort and money, and collectors I've talked to just bag them for convenience and specimen them back at the lab.
Museum specimens are the backbone of herpetology and natural history. Where would we be without them? We still need them desperately, now more than ever.
Pls explain why we desperately need more specimens? How about a museum with nice photos and videos. I'm sure the public would rather see that than dead frogs in jars.
User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1234
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 9:49 pm

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by Bryan Hamilton »

You don't really need a lab in the field to prep specimens. Just a table and some equipment. I carry everything I need in a tackle box and a few Tupperware containers. Good field biologists want to see the value of the specimens maximized and you can’t do that by keeping specimens in bags for any length of time.

I'm sure you're right that the public would rather not see a museum filled with jars. While I think the displays, pictures and videos are a critical part of museums, the natural history collections don't exist solely for the public's enjoyment. The public access areas are a small part of the museum. We need specimens to understand anatomy, feeding ecology, morphology, reproductive biology, distribution, and phylogeny. The reason I say we need the specimens more now than ever is that museum specimens are more valuable than ever, are used for more and more purposes and yet are being cataloged at a low rate. We’re answering important questions with those specimens that the original collectors never would have imagined.

I agree that there a some better methods to understand herps than just putting everything in a jar. Scientific collecting can seem cruel and unsophisticated, particularly without an understanding of how those specimens are used. But specimen based research is still critical. In some cases the specimens and the field notes are all we have left of entire species and communities. Without those specimens our understanding of biodiversity would be much diminished.
User avatar
BillMcGighan
Posts: 2362
Joined: June 7th, 2010, 9:23 am
Location: Unicoi, TN

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by BillMcGighan »

yuesam:
How about a museum with nice photos and videos. I'm sure the public would rather see that than dead frogs in jars.
Bryan Hamilton:
The public access areas are a small part of the museum. We need specimens to understand anatomy, feeding ecology, morphology, reproductive biology, distribution, and phylogeny.
Your compassion, Mr. Yue, is admirable, but, as Bryan mentioned, what the public sees of museum contents and function is the tip of the ice berg. The main work is done behind the scenes.

If range was all you wanted, a photo voucher might be sufficient, but many more studies are done with the specimens.

A simple, straight-forward example is, if a researcher wanted to document what a given snake eats in the wild, photos won’t work. Examination of stomach contents in many museum specimens in several museums may give a more accurate picture of diet, and maybe a temporal factor is part of the study (i.e. what they ate 50 years ago vs what they eat today.)

Some here can provide many more and better examples.
User avatar
mfb
Posts: 275
Joined: June 11th, 2010, 6:06 am
Contact:

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by mfb »

I also thought at first this was a troll because of the grossly inaccurate description of fieldwork. But you seem genuine in your concerns. There are many reasons why we need to continue to collect and maintain specimens. For example, long-term time series can help us identify the causes of population declines, and improve conservation efforts.

Here are some folks who provide detailed descriptions of why we need to continue to collect specimens.

Emily Graslie (Field Museum in Chicago; you can follow her interesting twitter account too @Ehmee) presents some of this information in the form of a youtube video:




And here are two written essays on the topic:

Prosanta Chakrabarty Collecting organisms to save their species

University of Alaska Museum (Re)affirming the specimen gold standard

Best wishes,

Mike
yuesam
Posts: 19
Joined: October 13th, 2014, 11:13 am

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by yuesam »

Thanks for the helpful links. Yeah does sound pretty trollish now that I reread it, but it is an accurate description of my experience... they clearly didn't follow any humane treatment protocols and there was no limit to how many you could collect. Not saying that all collecting surveys are like that, and I commend those of you who put the effort into humane treatment and euthanizing on site. Anyways, Im sure I just had a bad experience. I'm certainly not against specimen-ing if done humanely and if it's limited.
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by gbin »

Good follow-up, yuesam. :thumb:

It's too bad you had such a negative experience, but remember that wildlife scientists are still people; there are plenty who do a great job, a few who do an awful job and plenty more who fall somewhere between the extremes. At least science has a profound interest in self-policing. If journal editors learn about someone mistreating study subjects then that someone will suddenly find they're having trouble publishing their work. (One of the stipulations authors are generally required to make when they submit a paper for publication is that any animals used in their studies were treated humanely. And one of the things reviewers look for is whether methods that entailed animal suffering/death appear justified.) And granting agencies and permitting authorities will deny funding and permits to such people, too.

If you're looking for more reading on the pros and cons of scientific collecting, try searching for threads on the subject here at FHF. There have certainly been a few over the years.

Did you speak up when you saw animals being mistreated? (I'm not talking about objecting to their being collected/euthanized at all, but about their being handled inhumanely in the process.) I can understand it if you didn't, as it can be very hard for someone low in a hierarchy to offer criticism to someone (potentially much) higher. But you should steel yourself to the task next time. You might not be invited to assist that scientist thereafter (though you never know, you might just bring to his/her mind an issue to which s/he simply hadn't given adequate thought), but others will be all the more welcoming of an assistant who is willing to stand up for good ethics. And of course the animals deserve your help, regardless.

Gerry
User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by Kelly Mc »

Gerry I have, since a very specific exchange on this forum, learned and enjoyed learning from your objective inside perspective of the professional scientific world. Always explained in eloquent, warm blooded style.

I think how things are done, the tone and spirit of actions, with living organisms is very important. The pursuit of knowledge is wholesome.

The manner of doing things is always important and may mean only refinement of simplest action that doesn't even necessarily mean more time.

Any one can do it in any of the choices they make as they choose a path that involves the living.

I have a roach colony that I attend and process with similar respect to how a private bee keeper treats his bees. They enable me to have an independent source of nutritious food - what would I do without them?

Just a few different actions.
User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1234
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 9:49 pm

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by Bryan Hamilton »

I appreciate your open mindedness yuesam. Very mature something I didn't think was allowed on the internets.
Kelly Mc wrote:I have a roach colony that I attend and process with similar respect to how a private bee keeper treats his bees. They enable me to have an independent source of nutritious food - what would I do without them?
Is this nutrition for you? Delicious as well as nutritious?
User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by Kelly Mc »

:lol:
User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1234
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 9:49 pm

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by Bryan Hamilton »

There could be a market for the doomsday preppers.
User avatar
Jeff
Posts: 620
Joined: June 11th, 2010, 6:01 am
Location: Louisiana

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by Jeff »

Yuesam

Can you tell us what country or organization you were associated with during your negative experience?

Bryan, Cappy, Jerry, mfb and Bill M have countered with the modern explanations about why additional animals are collected, and I will try not to repeat their experienced responses.

The means of handling and euthanizing amphibians and reptiles has changed as methodology and material availability have evolved. My first experiences with a museum expedition were with a group who had learned in the 1960s from people who had learned during the 1930s. That is, at the end of the day you get the vat of formaldehyde and dump all the animals into it, then hold the lid until they stop thrashing about. Anaesthetics were not used so many decades back because they didn't even have proper anaesthetics for human surgery. It was the day of biting down hard on a rag while your arm was sawed off (Or, as my Father said, the dentist put a knee on your chest while drilling a hole in your tooth !).

Now we can use the same assuaging means we humans are accustomed to on animals. Advances included Reichenbach-Klinke's (In Diseases of Amphibians) preferred technique of slamming terminal animals onto hard pavement. Death, of course, was instant -- I suppose. Anaesthetics, when they appeared, could be costly. Ether worked well, and in the era that I decided to be nice to the animals I pickled, I would use commercial engine start - the type with diethyl either and a non-petroleum propellant. However, the day has come in which the protocols mentioned by my fellows require only a few accepted means (via IACUC) of killing a specimen. When I was a kid one could buy formaldehyde over the counter at the drug store. No more. The current drug of choice, sodium pentabarbitol, is registered as a narcotic with the DEA, and its use at the museum I currently associate with is extremely regulated. However, it is efficient, and painless -- I suppose.

Referring to photos - About ten years ago I read a response to a similar query (why not just take pictures?) from an associate who went on an expedition to Vietnam. No collecting permits were had, so photos were all they could use to assemble a species list. That may work for water monitors and king cobras, but when a finger-sized skink can only be differentiated by relative size of the postantebrachial scales and number of tubercles anterior to the ear opening? Negative.

I tell critical folks that amphibians and reptiles don't interview well. They won't tell us what they prefer to eat, and when, and how many kids they produced, or when their gonads are on high alert.

Doesn't the museum have enough already? Like, why do you need anymore frogs? The aforementioned museum in Louisiana has thousands of frogs collected over seven decades from many parts of the world. I am confident that more frogs are killed on Louisiana roads during a rainy, springtime night than are in the museum right now. That's just a relative argument, but at least provides some perspective on the amount of work and travel to assemble those frog specimens.

The use of DNA sequence data to determine genetic structure or find cryptic species is less than 40 years old. Unfortunately, preserved specimens, especially subjected to formaldehyde, are usually useless for obtaining viable tissues. Thus, what may seem to be common museum species must be collected anew to obtain tissues. I have been in the field with folks who only take tail tips or some such. But, I was assisting a doctoral student who was doing toad research, and only taking toe tips. The toads were clipped and sent limping off back to their breeding sites. The student carefully labeled her samples. That was fantastic but for the fact that in the lab we discovered that she was poor at distinguishing between the species she was studying. So many toes, so little data...

Just a few added ramblings...

Jeff
User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by Kelly Mc »

Perhaps the OP had the question of whether certain methods are indeed relevant today, or if possibly an undertone of allegiance to an ideological enables the practices.

add edt - or maybe to be more honest I wonder that sometimes. I know of alot of outdated stuff happening. I see it, read it and know & lived with people working in various positions, and have relationship w professors and scientists themselves.

And also does there exist any institution immune from the dear press and dent of ideology hugging?
User avatar
Bryan Hamilton
Posts: 1234
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 9:49 pm

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by Bryan Hamilton »

Kelly Mc wrote:Perhaps the OP had the question of whether certain methods are indeed relevant today, or if possibly an undertone of allegiance to an ideological enables the practices.

add edt - or maybe to be more honest I wonder that sometimes. I know of alot of outdated stuff happening. I see it, read it and know & lived with people working in various positions, and have relationship w professors and scientists themselves.

And also does there exist any institution immune from the dear press and dent of ideology hugging?
Fair questions. I think the question of relevancy has been pretty well addressed. I suppose there could be some "ideology hugging" but I don't necessarily think that's a negative thing. If something is useful, then that's a good reason to value it.

One point that hasn't been raised, is that museum work is truly a dying field. Bad pun but I like to get it in where I can. Less and less people are doing it and more and more herpetologists don't really like it or see its value. Most questions I'm interested in can't be answered with museum specimens, so I see collections as complementing rather than competing with my field based methods. Rest assured though, things are very different than 50 years ago when all herpetologists were expected to collect and catalog specimens.

One of the reasons some us defend museum work so much is because its constantly under attack. Its really easy to cut museum budgets and every year more and more collections are orphaned. At the same time many herpetologists and biologists question the value of museum specimens for some of the same reasons raised here.

Museum work is truly the backbone of herpetology. Its fundamental and critically important. If anything museum work is fading away rather than being over done.
User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by Kelly Mc »

It would be a crime to the mind of humanity if Museums and Libraries were to fade.

my focus in the question was more along the line of research projects I have been privy to.
User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by Kelly Mc »

I realize also that tissue materials are important but there should always be evaluation of method and there should not be waste.

To this day there are many unknown dietary data of so many taxa, yet there are preserved specimens.

habitat-relevant living examples of specimens, where the habitat design includes all opportunities for the modes of locomotion for the species presented is the most exciting evolutionary step of museum feature.

Today it could include digital screen of behaviors, narrative, small hidden cameras, and other inventive addendums to the exhibit to flesh out inherently cryptic or sedentary animal life time frames.
yuesam
Posts: 19
Joined: October 13th, 2014, 11:13 am

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by yuesam »

Gerry: Yes I did talk to them about it, but their response gave me the impression that it was common practice (at least for their lab!), which is what prompted me to start this post in the first place. Great to know of the self policing in science. But just a follow up question: if the author was treating the animals badly, they obviously won't write that down in their methods for reviewers to read... so how would reviewers, or anyone else, know?

Jeff: will message you the details

Kelly: 'habitat-relevant living examples of specimens, where the habitat design includes all opportunities for the modes of locomotion for the species ' That's a great idea. To me, keeping something alive would reveal a lot more on behavior, feeding habits, locomotion, etc. And you would still have a dead specimen afterwards when it does die. We would first need thorough knowledge of its proper husbandry to justify keeping live specimens though - you wouldnt want it slowly dying from people giving it the wrong food, substrate, etc. Just another point on the welfare side of things.
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by gbin »

yuesam wrote:Gerry: Yes I did talk to them about it, but their response gave me the impression that it was common practice (at least for their lab!), which is what prompted me to start this post in the first place. Great to know of the self policing in science. But just a follow up question: if the author was treating the animals badly, they obviously won't write that down in their methods for reviewers to read... so how would reviewers, or anyone else, know?
Glad to hear you spoke up on behalf of those frogs. :thumb: But let me ask, did you speak up specifically about the fact that "surveyers [were] pretty much chucking every frog they find into ziplock bags" and then not attending to the frog-stuffed bags until "After a few weeks"? Or did you object to a mix of issues, including a complaint about whether the frogs should be collected at all and in the numbers they were being collected? It makes a difference.

If you did the latter, then whoever you spoke to just might have written off your entire complaint on the grounds that you were not only ignorant of the importance of animal collection to science, but also overly emotional/insufficiently rational about the animals and therefore prone to exaggerating your concerns about them. That would be unfortunate, to be sure, but in my opinion it would also be understandable. Your first post here was so sweeping and inflammatory in its accusation that my take on it was that you were simply trolling, after all. Moreover, these days scientists encounter quite a number of roadblocks to their work that are placed there by well-meaning but badly misinformed people. Some folks stage protests about laboratory animal use. Some even break into facilities and release animals (as if that's going to be good for them!) and destroy equipment. Yes, these things really happen. Much more often nowadays, though, scientists are unnecessarily hindered by institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs).

As the name states, these committees are set up to oversee laboratory (and whatever other) animal care and use occurs in the institution, to ensure the animals are receiving certain standards of care while they're alive and are being euthanized by best applicable method when their sacrifice is required; sometimes (but by no means always) they are also charged with assessing whether the animal use involved in a particular study is justified by its scientific merit. Don't get me wrong, I think IACUCs are a great idea overall, and so do most other scientists I've known. Animals deserve to be protected from the expedience and excess that at least some scientists would subject them to (as I said, scientists are just people). But IACUCs often have few if any actual scientists on them, usually have mostly veterinarians and a few administrator-type folks on them, and sometimes even have a number of laypeople from outside the institution on them. What's the problem with that? Whether or not it's actually part of their responsibilities and whatever their backgrounds, I've yet to see an IACUC that didn't at least attempt to pass judgment on scientific merit, and few if any of those non-scientists - and that most definitely includes the great majority of veterinarians, who are only medically, not scientifically trained - have the education and experience required to do that. All of these committees draw people with empathy for the animals, as should be the case. Beyond that, though, all that's necessary to tell a scientist to improve his/her animal care is an understanding of basic animal keeping standards, whereas an understanding (and I would argue appreciation) of science and at least some knowledge of the particular field of study is necessary to judge the merits of that scientist's work. If IACUCs were always set up such that they had at least some bona fide scientific representation and considering scientific merit was always left strictly up to that portion of them then I would have no problem with these committees whatsoever, but that's not at all the way things currently are.

I'd suggest if you have any similar experiences in the future that you focus specifically and entirely on animal welfare, making a special effort to point out the specific problems you see in that respect, e.g. animal crowding, animals kept without care for weeks, animals becoming emaciated or dying before they're processed. And if you aren't taken seriously by whomever you talk with, bump it up the chain of command until you are. I'm not saying they'll necessarily give in to your views, mind you, but they should be able to respond to you a lot more meaningfully than just "this is how everyone does it." And I can assure you, if I were the principal investigator (PI) on the study you described and you pointed out to me that my graduate student/research assistant/whoever was treating animals that way, I'd make dang sure they never did so again; if I were the department head I'd make sure the PI fixed things.

You're right, if investigators outright lie to editors/in publication then it can be very hard to discover unless the lie affects the reproducibility of their results. That's one of the reasons IACUCs should indeed exist, and also one of the reasons why people who work with or otherwise become aware of the poor practices of such investigators should speak up.

Gerry
User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by Kelly Mc »

If yuesam's concerns were dismissed as not knowing how it is that would be their antiquated myopia. Although it may be jarring to those embedded in that ideology, things are starting not to fly that way.

One indication I can think of as an example of the shift would be The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness.
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by gbin »

It's not a question of scientists being embedded in an ideology (antiquated or otherwise), Kelly, but of their being (rightfully) reluctant to abide by the judgment of people who are not sufficiently educated or experienced to determine a study's scientific merit. Or worse, who display an emotional/irrational level of concern for the animals well-being and/or against scientific undertakings with those animals.

You've heard me say it before: Life involves suffering. If humanity were removed from earth the remaining life forms would still suffer, routinely and very often severely, by their own actions and their interactions with others. (Picture that zebra being pulled down, disemboweled and then eaten while still alive and conscious by that lion, a scene played out in innumerable ways throughout nature every day...) Even by our very best efforts we're never going to make much of a dent in, let alone eliminate, that simple fact of life. I'm accordingly too much of a realist to ever advocate (or pay much heed to those who advocate) that we should try to eliminate animal suffering - something we don't even try very hard to do for our fellow humans, by the way. And I'm too much of a pragmatist even to sign on to attempts just to minimize animal suffering, as if our wants and needs shouldn't account for anything. I say let's do what we can to minimize animal suffering while still indulging our pursuits that cause it, and leave it at that. We're rapidly improving on doing this very thing (though we've still obviously much more to do), and I believe we would be even if there wasn't a small but vociferous faction fighting for us to do much more. Any successes that faction achieves going beyond this point, too, I believe are going to be relatively short-lived in the overall scheme of things. Suffering is going to continue whether or not we're around. We're going to continue to cause suffering whether or not we like it or do anything about it. To convince oneself otherwise is to be embedded in an ideology, in my opinion, and though it may be a very modern ideology it's nonetheless one doomed to failure.

I'm aware of the research focusing on animal consciousness and more specifically animal suffering. I heartily approve of it for what it can teach us, but think little or nothing of it for mandating how we should live. Lobsters might feel terrible (albeit for just an instant) being thrown into the cook pot, but few people are ever going to stop throwing them into the cook pot because of it; they simply taste too good. Nestling wild birds might experience stress from being handled even oh-so-gently by researchers, but few scientists interested in birds are going to turn their backs on studies requiring such; there's simply too much to learn, and in some cases (e.g. for conservation) too much of an imperative to learn it.

Trying to eliminate animal suffering - and conducting research and issuing statements (such as The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness) related to animal suffering - is very much in vogue in the UK at present. And it has managed to affect some laws there. I think you're pinning too much hope on what is really something of a regional fad in a very modern society (which enables it to pursue such fads), though, if you expect it to spread very meaningfully to the U.S. and elsewhere. You'd get much better traction, I think, pinning your hope on and putting your effort behind the more pragmatic view I espoused above.

Let me reiterate my take on things before anyone levels any foolish accusations at me: People who cause animal suffering for the sake of causing suffering are sick, and should be stopped. People who cause animal suffering out of thoughtlessness, laziness or greed should be corrected, or stopped if they resist correction. It's in what way(s) and how far we try to go beyond that where I differ from those who focus (in my opinion) too strongly on animal suffering.

By the way, even those neuroscientists at Cambridge were careful to say in their statement that other species "[possess] the neurological substrates that generate consciousness," not that other species possess consciousness. And then of course even if we someday determine that other species do indeed possess consciousness, that still won't mean we'll know just how those species view a given situation. We're a long way yet from developing that universal happiness meter. ;)

Gerry
User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by Kelly Mc »

Or, even more useful would be a Complacency Meter.
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by gbin »

Now, now... I'm not complacent about this stuff. I just think we're better off focusing on what we can and should do about it rather than what we might wish we could do about it.

But your comeback was witty, in any event. :thumb:

Gerry
User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by Kelly Mc »

No Gerry !

I hoped it was a given, it wasn't direct especially to you!
User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by Kelly Mc »

What was meant was that if there be a side to err, it is changing.
User avatar
gbin
Posts: 2292
Joined: June 10th, 2010, 4:28 pm

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by gbin »

Thanks for clarifying that, Kel!

I'm hitting the road tomorrow morning to spend some time with distant family, so I'd better say it now:

Have a safe and happy Thanksgiving, everybody! (Yes, even those of you who don't live in the U.S. and won't be celebrating the holiday! ;) )

:beer:

Gerry
User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by Kelly Mc »

A dogged spirit in conversations of certain topics, is often in the interest of balance.

In some discussions there is no shortage of people speaking, perceiving approval in audience, but there are others who do not post, apprehensive of being stigmatized. I do not care about that, and think it is important to represent that body of membership.
User avatar
Kelly Mc
Posts: 4529
Joined: October 18th, 2011, 1:03 pm

Re: Herp collecting surveys

Post by Kelly Mc »

gbin wrote:
yuesam wrote:Gerry: Yes I did talk to them about it, but their response gave me the impression that it was common practice (at least for their lab!), which is what prompted me to start this post in the first place. Great to know of the self policing in science. But just a follow up question: if the author was treating the animals badly, they obviously won't write that down in their methods for reviewers to read... so how would reviewers, or anyone else, know?
Glad to hear you spoke up on behalf of those frogs. :thumb: But let me ask, did you speak up specifically about the fact that "surveyers [were] pretty much chucking every frog they find into ziplock bags" and then not attending to the frog-stuffed bags until "After a few weeks"? Or did you object to a mix of issues, including a complaint about whether the frogs should be collected at all and in the numbers they were being collected? It makes a difference.

If you did the latter, then whoever you spoke to just might have written off your entire complaint on the grounds that you were not only ignorant of the importance of animal collection to science, but also overly emotional/insufficiently rational about the animals and therefore prone to exaggerating your concerns about them. That would be unfortunate, to be sure, but in my opinion it would also be understandable. Your first post here was so sweeping and inflammatory in its accusation that my take on it was that you were simply trolling, after all. Moreover, these days scientists encounter quite a number of roadblocks to their work that are placed there by well-meaning but badly misinformed people. Some folks stage protests about laboratory animal use. Some even break into facilities and release animals (as if that's going to be good for them!) and destroy equipment. Yes, these things really happen. Much more often nowadays, though, scientists are unnecessarily hindered by institutional animal care and use committees (IACUCs).

As the name states, these committees are set up to oversee laboratory (and whatever other) animal care and use occurs in the institution, to ensure the animals are receiving certain standards of care while they're alive and are being euthanized by best applicable method when their sacrifice is required; sometimes (but by no means always) they are also charged with assessing whether the animal use involved in a particular study is justified by its scientific merit. Don't get me wrong, I think IACUCs are a great idea overall, and so do most other scientists I've known. Animals deserve to be protected from the expedience and excess that at least some scientists would subject them to (as I said, scientists are just people). But IACUCs often have few if any actual scientists on them, usually have mostly veterinarians and a few administrator-type folks on them, and sometimes even have a number of laypeople from outside the institution on them. What's the problem with that? Whether or not it's actually part of their responsibilities and whatever their backgrounds, I've yet to see an IACUC that didn't at least attempt to pass judgment on scientific merit, and few if any of those non-scientists - and that most definitely includes the great majority of veterinarians, who are only medically, not scientifically trained - have the education and experience required to do that. All of these committees draw people with empathy for the animals, as should be the case. Beyond that, though, all that's necessary to tell a scientist to improve his/her animal care is an understanding of basic animal keeping standards, whereas an understanding (and I would argue appreciation) of science and at least some knowledge of the particular field of study is necessary to judge the merits of that scientist's work. If IACUCs were always set up such that they had at least some bona fide scientific representation and considering scientific merit was always left strictly up to that portion of them then I would have no problem with these committees whatsoever, but that's not at all the way things currently are.

I'd suggest if you have any similar experiences in the future that you focus specifically and entirely on animal welfare, making a special effort to point out the specific problems you see in that respect, e.g. animal crowding, animals kept without care for weeks, animals becoming emaciated or dying before they're processed. And if you aren't taken seriously by whomever you talk with, bump it up the chain of command until you are. I'm not saying they'll necessarily give in to your views, mind you, but they should be able to respond to you a lot more meaningfully than just "this is how everyone does it." And I can assure you, if I were the principal investigator (PI) on the study you described and you pointed out to me that my graduate student/research assistant/whoever was treating animals that way, I'd make dang sure they never did so again; if I were the department head I'd make sure the PI fixed things.

You're right, if investigators outright lie to editors/in publication then it can be very hard to discover unless the lie affects the reproducibility of their results. That's one of the reasons IACUCs should indeed exist, and also one of the reasons why people who work with or otherwise become aware of the poor practices of such investigators should speak up.

Gerry
Quoted to outline its muscularity and insight, excellent advice as always, and my apology for any tangent that seemed out of place on my part - completely unintended!!
Post Reply