But here is something that I have a great deal of cognitive dissonance about:
When you look at the partner page for corporate sponsors of this week and the partnership itself, you find some names you’d expect: Burt’s Bees, Häagen-Dazs, Whole Foods, etc. There are also some surprising sponsors.
Specifically: Orkin is a sponsor.
Orkin has been “keeping pests in their place for over 100 years.”
Now, here is the dilemma I see facing the Pollinator Partnership. They have a great message…but no money. They have a potential sponsor…but it’s an extermination company that benefits from people’s fears of insects. Orkin commercials, while often quite funny, definitely rely on very creepy images of roaches being in your face. They are entomophobia peddlers, if you will.
So, while Orkin’s primary business is killing insects, they do give a lot of money away. Non-profits need money.
And so Orkin sponsors Pollinator Week and the Pollinator Partnership.
One of the biggest issues I have with Orkin is the phrase “The Orkin Man™”.
Yes. It is a trademarked phrase.
And it’s a MAN. Because manly men are the only ones who can take care of your infestations. *sigh*
What do you think? Does having Orkin as a sponsor harm the message of the Pollinator Partnership?
I have discussed the CITES treaty before, and also dealing in endangered species. A local Michigan man just ran afoul of both:
Kevin Rucinski of Roscommon County’s Gerrish Township was sentenced Thursday as part of an 18-month term of probation. The 49-year-old also was ordered to pay $5,000 in restitution and a $15,000 fine.
Rucinski pleaded guilty earlier this year to violating the Endangered Species Act. Authorities say he bought more than $15,000 worth of dried insects including butterflies on eBay, many from abroad.
As usual on news stories, the comments are quite cranky–mostly focusing around “why are cops doing this instead of finding real criminals?”
Well, why ARE they chasing a Michigan dentist, rather than a drug kingpin?
There are several answers to that question. CITES stands for Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. As a signatory to CITES, the US has a responsibility to enforce it.
CITES bans the worldwide trade of species that are on the verge of extinction. It is important because many governments in areas of high biodiversity are not able to fully control collection and export of endangered species.
CITES acts to reduce the demand for endangered animals and plants by regulating their trade. Ideally, as more people realize that (for example) owning rhino horns is illegal, fewer rhinos will will be killed for their horns. This is not always the case, alas.
If our Michigan dentist had bought thousands of dollars worth of tiger skins, rhino horns, or clouded leopards, I think law enforcement action against him would be quite understandable. People look at this photo of a bird smuggler and immediately are outraged at the cruelty.
But…this Michigan dentist bought a lot of what, colloquially, are known as bugs. Which are seen as trivial in the public view, or worse, pest species. Hence, the cranky comments about this not being a “real” crime.
But insects are just as important, possibly more so, than vertebrate charismatic species. Insects are the little gears that make an ecosystem work. We don’t actually know, most of the time, what consequences total removal of an insect species from their native habitat will have. We can guess, based on experience, that it will be a bad thing.
This utilitarian argument for saving species is one that most people can understand, regardless of their knowledge of ecosystems and nutrient cycling.
There is also a second argument to be made: that insects have an intrinsic value, simply because they exist. In other words, when we see a paper that reports 50% of insect species living on an island have dissapeared, we should be saddened, even if there is no commercial value to those insects.
“Depending on what happens to human societies, we will spend the next few generations coming to terms with what we have lost,” said Dunn. “We won’t know most of what we have lost because it will have never been named. Some of the species we will have lost will have had important medicinal values. Some of them will have pollinated our crops. Some of them will have been strange creatures deserving explanation. Some will have been beautiful. Some will have had values that we are not yet capable of understanding.
“We live in a vast living museum that is being flooded and burned and ravaged. We know that we must save some of the art, but we don’t know anything about the art. So we grab the showiest things and hope they are important.”
Yeah. What he said.
Citation of the paper I mentioned:
Sodhi, N., Wilcove, D., Subaraj, R., Yong, D., Lee, T., Bernard, H., & Lim, S. (2009). Insect extinctions on a small denuded Bornean island Biodiversity and Conservation DOI: 10.1007/s10531-009-9585-7
Additional Info on Extinction and Importation:
- Rob Dunn’s page has many PDFs of his scholarly work on saving parasite species
- US Fish and Wildlife info on importing endangered species
You might remember that some time ago I expressed some concern about whether or not I should report on the papers given at the Entomological Society Annual Meeting. The other ESA (Ecological Society of America) just published a paper on that very topic!
Patrick C. Tobin, James L. Frazier (2009) A Slide Down a Slippery Slope: Ethical Guidelines in the Dissemination of Computer-Based Presentations. Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America: Vol. 90, No. 1, pp. 39-42.
The authors argue that downloading and publishing the data or figures from a presentation is off limits. Since the Entomological Society now records and stores online the Annual Meeting presentations, this is not an unlikely issue.
“In particular, we specifically ask if the appropriate ethical behavior associated with the dissemination of scientific information, and particularly unpublished information, during scientific meetings, workshops, and other related events currently dominated by computer-based slide presentations is being handled in a manner consistent with the norms of printed materials….
1) All presentations are the intellectual property of the author(s); hence, computer slides shall never be downloaded by anyone else without the prior and explicit consent of the author(s).
2) Meeting organizers should accept formally and unequivocally all the responsibilities of hosting a scientific meeting, which includes ensuring that proper security protocols are in place to prevent unauthorized downloading to protect the integrity of the research process and uphold an ethical code of conduct.
3) Meeting organizers are encouraged to examine the use of modern computer-based tools to improve security measures during meetings….
4) If meeting organizers wish to develop a web site to host presentation files, then they must ask speakers to provide consent prior to the development of the web site and posting of slides. For example, this could be obtained from authors by asking them during the abstract submission process. In the absence of any written consent, however, then the assumption shall be that the posting or sharing of presentation files is forbidden.
5) We call upon Universities to require their students to perform coursework in ethical scientific conduct, and to ensure specifically that new or existing coursework is relevant to today’s technological tools.”
What do you think?
I know that some of the folks I’ve seen at meetings leave crucial bits of info off their talks–a talk about EAB pheromone, which is likely to be both lucrative and a hot paper–discussed techniques and results, but omitted the crucial chemical structure of the compound in questions.
How about posters? Is providing a printout of your poster implicit permission to write about it?