News Controversy Surrounding Scientist's Killing of Rare Bird for Research Purposes

[Buckleymanor]

Did you ever consider that killing this particular Kingfisher may go some way toward protecting the rest of the population? Having an understanding of the anatomy and biochemistry/physiology of the tissues and organs of the bird will go a long way in helping researchers keep this species alive. The only way to do that is to kill and study the bird. Since there is only a single bird from this species that has ever been captured, it makes sense to me that it would be killed and studied. I don't think this guy just killed it in order to stuff it. From the looks of the article you posted: http://travel.aol.co.uk/2015/10/10/...are-bird-kills-it-male-moustached-kingfisher/

It is written:

"Chris Filardi, director of Pacific Programs at the American Museum of Natural History, tracked down the bird and killed it in the name of science."

That doesn't tell us much but I think that "in the name of science" probably means they killed it to study it's internal anatomy.

Do think that the Kingfisher species would have been better served if Filardi simply put this bird in a birdcage and just looked at it instead of dissecting it?

Yes I do consider that the dead Kingfisher could go some way to protecting the rest of the population and I have no compunction that this is a good thing. What I object
to is the manner in which it was carried out.
As Astrunuc pointed out why was it not possible to wait till the bird died of natural causes.
If the population is as robust as the author points out you could expect at least one a week to fall of there perch and with help from the local population it should not
have been too long before a suitable specimen was found.
The whole escapade looks and reads like a trophy hunt unnecessary in this day and age.
I doubt that there is any evidence that the researcher violated IACUC protocols but that's no excuse as to these moving further away from the 18 century to the present
day.

 

[russ_watters]

What I object to is the manner in which it was carried out.

I don't see anywhere in the article a mention of the manner in which it was carried out. What was it?

As Astrunuc pointed out why was it not possible to wait till the bird died of natural causes.

How long would that take? How much would it cost? How much effort would it require in feeding and care? Would the bird change as it aged?

This guy's lab is not a zoo.

I doubt that there is any evidence that the researcher violated IACUC protocols but that's no excuse as to these moving further away from the 18 century to the present
day.

Yeah, it really is a good "excuse". These protocols are not arrived at lightly and are pretty much gospel and law in regards to ethics. It is wholly unreasonable to expect the scientist to unilaterally alter the standard for what you think would be "better". And they certainly were not written, much less last updated in the 18th century.

I am sure if the mythical beast could speak it would share your empathy.

When it learns to speak, it can join the ethics committee (not sarcasm). Your belief in the superiority of your own empathy is wholly misplaced here. You are operating strictly on fantasy because you know virtually nothing about the reasons, methods, or standards applied here. It is ridiculously unfair to think that you, who knows essentially nothing about what happened, to assume an ethical violation by the scientist or ethical superiority of your armchair quarterbacking.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

There's nothing more to discuss here. Until there's any evidence that he violated ethical practice there's no reason to continue. A discussion on IACUC protocols is entirely valid but if anyone wants to start one they're going to need proper arguments regarding specific protocols. Thread locked.