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

[Buckleymanor]

Oh dear, my Omy sense tells me that I might be on someones "ignore" list.

As a notafieldbiologist, it's difficult for me to pull the sound bite from the reasoned argument, from the alleged, I posted this morning, that might satisfy you.

How's this:again, the reference article you appear to be seeking:

Thanks for the wonder full links provided these show a deeper insight as to the reasons why.
I can't help agreeing with the first post though.

"I'm sorry, I read this justification and it just brings to mind Shakespeare: "methinks thou doth protest too much." It all seems like justification for a poorly thought through decision process. The crux of the justification is that "we think this bird is not as rare as everyone else does." It is listed on the IUCN red list as endangered and the population is estimated as less than 1500, maybe much less, based on best available knowledge at this time. Yet based purely on anecdotal information and very tentative field work these researchers have come to the conclusion that the forests are in fact full of these birds. Kind of like listening to tales of indigenous people in the Himalayas and deducing that there are hundreds of yetis wandering the mountains. It is best to err on the side of caution, something that was not done here. Until valid field studies have in fact confirmed that the population is large, viable and sustainable, collecting what may still turn out to be a rare individual, perhaps crucial to the survival of the species, is inexcusable. This whole affair smells of imperious attitudes to contravene what should have been a more cautious and passive approach. If the population does at some point prove to be as numerous as put forth here, then collect a specimen. Until then use some common sense. If nothing else this premature killing of a rare bird gives a black eye to ornithological research."

 

[Ryan_m_b]

There seems to be different arguments going on here. First there is the discussion of whether or not scientists should collect specimens that will be killed for study. Second is the discussion of whether or not in this particular case it was methodologically sound. Least this thread degenerate and end up being locked I suggest members focus on the second argument only.

 

[russ_watters]

There seems to be different arguments going on here. First there is the discussion of whether or not scientists should collect specimens that will be killed for study. Second is the discussion of whether or not in this particular case it was methodologically sound. Least this thread degenerate and end up being locked I suggest members focus on the second argument only.

How are they separate?

 

[Ryan_m_b]

How are they separate?

The first argument is pointless, yes to study organisms we need to take samples and this involves killing them. The second is whether or not it was appropriate in this case from a methodological perspective.

 

[DiracPool]

Second is the discussion of whether or not in this particular case it was methodologically sound. Least this thread degenerate and end up being locked I suggest members focus on the second argument only.

I think the core issue is with the sensationalism of the OP's principle reference: http://travel.aol.co.uk/2015/10/10/...are-bird-kills-it-male-moustached-kingfisher/

Scientist takes first ever photo of rare bird then kills it

What needs to be done is unpack that sensationalism and find more "sober" reports of what actually happened and the motivation behind it. Unfortunately, I don't care enough about the issue to do any substantial "muckraking" on it. But I do agree that we need to see more facts and less emotion over the issue.

 

[Dale]

I am interested in this case. The fact is that animals are killed on a regular basis for science. Usually this is governed by an institutions IACUC, which is similar to an IRB but for animals.

Does harvesting of specimens outside of an institution's facilities also fall under the purview of the IACUC?

 

[DaveC426913]

I think the core issue is with the sensationalism of the OP's principle reference...
... we need to see more facts and less emotion over the issue.

This.

 

[russ_watters]

The first argument is pointless, yes to study organisms we need to take samples and this involves killing them.

While that may seem self evident to you and me, that appears to be the focus/point of the OP. If the goalposts are to be moved, the OP should acknowledge it.

The second is whether or not it was appropriate in this case from a methodological perspective.

I'll certainly grant that that could be an issue, but given that we don't really know what the scientist intends to do with the sample, it is pretty much impossible to judge. However, given that we don't know I think we should all be able to agree that it is improper/unfair to assume judgement that this scientist is a horrible person for an act that at face value appears completely normal/in line with current scientific practice.

 

[William T]

This is it, guys. PETA is now confirmed to be the new Catholic Church.

 

[Dale]

The Ornithological Council, the NIH, and some universities all seem to agree that the institution's IACUC has oversight for field collection and capture of animals in the wild.

http://oacu.od.nih.gov/WildBirdGuide.pdf
http://grants.nih.gov/grants/olaw/20140320_samplewildlifeprotocolb.docx
http://www.esf.edu/animalcare/documents/IACUC-MS.pdf

So I think that if the researcher in question followed his IACUC policies then he was behaving ethically.

 

[Buckleymanor]

While that may seem self evident to you and me, that appears to be the focus/point of the OP. If the goalposts are to be moved, the OP should acknowledge it.

I'll certainly grant that that could be an issue, but given that we don't really know what the scientist intends to do with the sample, it is pretty much impossible to judge. However, given that we don't know I think we should all be able to agree that it is improper/unfair to assume judgement that this scientist is a horrible person for an act that at face value appears completely normal/in line with current scientific practice.

Is it unfair or hard to make judgements about the scientists character when he openly displays his emotions towards the Kingfisher.
"Initially it was a surreal, childlike sense of a mythical beast come to life, Filardi says".
Which seems to be in total conflict with the fact that he then killed the bird.
Emotion aside this comes across as rather odd behaviour.

 

[russ_watters]

Is it unfair or hard to make judgements about the scientists character when he openly displays his emotions towards the Kingfisher.

Yes.

 

[DiracPool]

Is it unfair or hard to make judgements about the scientists character when he openly displays his emotions towards the Kingfisher.
"Initially it was a surreal, childlike sense of a mythical beast come to life, Filardi says".
Which seems to be in total conflict with the fact that he then killed the bird.
Emotion aside this comes across as rather odd behaviour.

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?

 

[Dale]

Is it unfair or hard to make judgements about the scientists character when he openly displays his emotions towards the Kingfisher.

So doing some digging I have been able to determine that the American Museum of Natural History does have an Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. Since the researcher was acting in an official capacity as an employee of the AMNH, that would have governed the research in question.

Is there any evidence that the researcher violated his IACUC protocol?

 

[Buckleymanor]

Yes.

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

 

[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.