Government says new centipede was illegally collected

[Frogdaddy]

Science | AAAS

www.sciencemag.org

Is this a huge problem? Probably not, how mamy specimens would a taxonomist collect in the field? 1-20.
Should this guy have known the law and had permits? Yes absolutely, ignorance is not an excuse.

 

[goliathusdavid]

I have no words. Really???????? I mean come on. Being a western scientist doesn't mean you don't need to follow the rules of the country in which you are collecting. This entomologist should face serious consequences.

 

[Conor10]

Come on, one of my favorite pedes of all time. I was dreaming about owning one but looks like that dream went down the drain.

 

[Malum Argenteum]

Quotes from the article:

1. "The Philippine government says the Spanish neurologist and amateur biologist who described the species acquired his specimens illegally."

2. "the Philippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources says it is illegal to sell specimens to a foreign researcher who has not signed an agreement with DENR."

3. "Doménech says he didn’t know he needed permits to export the centipedes,"

(1) is not supported by (2), and (2) is the only claim I see in the article that could possibly support the claim of illegality. According to (2) it is illegal under Philippine law to sell; the researcher did not sell anything. Maybe there is more to that law that we don't know, but that would be mere speculation unless someone can cite Philippine law.

I don't know what Spanish wildlife law is like, but I'd be willing to bet Doménech isn't violating Spanish law. The most broad-reaching wildlife legislation in the world, the US Lacey Act, wouldn't have been violated in this case if the researcher were subject to US law, since Lacey explicitly takes ignorance (as in quote #3) as exculpatory.

Wrong, and negligent? Probably. Illegally collected? Looks like it. Illegal action on the part of the researcher? Nope, at least not as shown by the cited article.

 

[ThemantismanofPA]

Scolopendra paradoxa?

 

[Ratmosphere]

Wow. I remember it like it was yesterday when I first saw videos of that species.

 

[l4nsky]

Wow. I remember it like it was yesterday when I first saw videos of that species.

Yup, if I remember correctly it was semiaquatic too, one of two known species with that lifestyle.

 

[Arthroverts]

This is a really complicated problem, but I find it really ironic that the Philippines is going after this one scientist for a very small amount of specimens when hundreds, quite likely thousands, of specimens are brown-boxed out of the country yearly by small-time collectors and breeders (who are still actually moving more money and specimens than he was). It sounds a lot like they are looking to make an example as opposed to doing it out of a genuine respect for the law.

Thanks,

Arthroverts

 

[Scoly]

This is a really complicated problem, but I find it really ironic that the Philippines is going after this one scientist for a very small amount of specimens when hundreds, quite likely thousands, of specimens are brown-boxed out of the country yearly by small-time collectors and breeders (who are still actually moving more money and specimens than he was). It sounds a lot like they are looking to make an example as opposed to doing it out of a genuine respect for the law.

Thanks,

Arthroverts

They can and do clamp down on collecting and exporting within their own jurisdiction, but unless they are targeting specific species it would be very hard for them to monitor what pops up in the hobby abroad and show that it was exported from the Philippines.

On the other hand, a scientific paper claiming the discovery of a new species which cites specimens collected on specific dates at specific locations is hard to ignore, and it's also very simple to ascertain whether permits were issued.

It's less about picking on a specific researcher to make an example of (although they certainly will do that) and more a case something so blatant they couldn't not investigate it.

 

[goliathusdavid]

This is a really complicated problem, but I find it really ironic that the Philippines is going after this one scientist for a very small amount of specimens when hundreds, quite likely thousands, of specimens are brown-boxed out of the country yearly by small-time collectors and breeders (who are still actually moving more money and specimens than he was). It sounds a lot like they are looking to make an example as opposed to doing it out of a genuine respect for the law.

Thanks,

Arthroverts

The hobby is certainly a bigger threat than any individual scientist, but I think this was nevertheless an important example to make. Anyone in the scientific community needs to be held to a higher standard than hobbyists (though I think those standards should be pretty high too). I think another reason that the Philippine government had to act on this is the optics. A western, white scientist (Spanish just to make it look worse in the context of the Philippines) coming in and illegally taking specimens, without consulting with the local government, before receiving praise for discovering a new species. To me, that looks and feels like the scientific colonialism of the 19th and early 20th century. And I'm sure it seems a lot worse to the government.

Should the Philippines be going after illegal exporters to the hobby with greater determination? Definitely. Do we need TONS more enforcement? Undebatable. Should they have taken this scientist down? There is no doubt in my mind.

An interesting question in my mind is whether the journal had a responsibility to investigate the sourcing of the specimens before publishing...

 

[Frogdaddy]

Good discussion everyone. There are so many interesting facets to this story.
1. In one section if the article it says the Filipino collectors had a collecting permit and their friend had an export permit, but later in the article 4 out of 5 collectors said they were collected illegally. Not the scientists fault right?
2. Yes the scientist should have researched and obtained any applicable permits. Last time I checked ignorance of the law was no excuse. Will the Philippine government make an example of him or the collectors or both?
3. This scientist is described as a neurologist and amateur biologist. Well that could be any one of us. Yet the article lists a university he's associated with. The article does not list his credentials as it relates to inverts. Perhaps he wouldn't be able to obtain the necessary permit as a foreign researcher?
4. There is an interesting morality play here. Research vs. Conservation. One hand you have reviewers who seem to not care whether animals are taken illegally because legally collected animals would curb science and slow down advancement. On the other hand other reviewers were appalled at animals illegally obtained for description. They want to deny those papers from being published thereby curbing science and slowing down advancement.
Is it even a scientific journals job to police researchers? I say no.

 

[goliathusdavid]

Good discussion everyone. There are so many interesting facets to this story.
1. In one section if the article it says the Filipino collectors had a collecting permit and their friend had an export permit, but later in the article 4 out of 5 collectors said they were collected illegally. Not the scientists fault right?
2. Yes the scientist should have researched and obtained any applicable permits. Last time I checked ignorance of the law was no excuse. Will the Philippine government make an example of him or the collectors or both?
3. This scientist is described as a neurologist and amateur biologist. Well that could be any one of us. Yet the article lists a university he's associated with. The article does not list his credentials as it relates to inverts. Perhaps he wouldn't be able to obtain the necessary permit as a foreign researcher?
4. There is an interesting morality play here. Research vs. Conservation. One hand you have reviewers who seem to not care whether animals are taken illegally because legally collected animals would curb science and slow down advancement. On the other hand other reviewers were appalled at animals illegally obtained for description. They want to deny those papers from being published thereby curbing science and slowing down advancement.
Is it even a scientific journals job to police researchers? I say no.

It's not entirely clear to me that the specimens were COLLECTED illegally. But what is overwhelmingly clear is that they were EXPORTED illegally: " Cipat tells Science he had collecting permits and that a friend with export permits shipped the specimens. But the Philippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources says it is illegal to sell specimens to a foreign researcher who has not signed an agreement with DENR."
As for whether the paper should have been published, it is a fascinating moral question, though I'm not sure I totally agree with your take. To argue against publishing, there is the fact that he was a self described "newbie" who didn't know what he was doing. And then there is the issue of legality. I'm all for scientific advancement but is it not the moral obligation of the scientific community to do it right? Describing a new species is wonderful, but useless if that species goes extinct the next year. And if this scientist didn't have the proper credentials should his paper even have been published in the first place? Research is fantastic, but it has to be done right.
To look at a non invert example, take CRISPR. I know comparing CRISPR research to centipede research is a far fetched, but bear with me here. I think we can all agree, that research done with such a powerful gene editing tool should be regulated. We don't want everyone and their cat to have access to a tool that has terrifying bio weapon potential. So research with such a tool should be done carefully and legally. I think the same can be said of ALL research. Allowing illegal research to be published sets a dangerous precedent: that the law doesn't matter when it comes to scientific advancement. But it does. And yes, you can sight Copernicus and other heroes of science who changed the world by breaking the rules. But this man is not one of them. Science needs to work within the law, not against it. And it is the job of journals, and the wider scientific community, to make sure it is doing that.

 

[Malum Argenteum]

Should they have taken this scientist down? There is no doubt in my mind.

Exactly what evidence is there that the researcher violated any law? The cited article does not establish that he did. It isn't even stated that Doménech set foot in the Philippines. Are these animals CITES listed?

Last time I checked ignorance of the law was no excuse

You didn't check, then. Ironic.

https://www.fws.gov/le/pdffiles/Lacey.pdf

In order for civil or criminal penalties, the offense must have been committed "knowingly", according to at least US federal wildlife law (that's one reason why the tens of thousands of owners of Australian reptile pets aren't arrested). When I order something from overseas, I do not check the laws in the shipper's country to see if I owe any duties on the sale. I don't check to see if the product is legal for sale, or is stolen.

If it is the responsibility of journals to investigate whether collection was done legally, is it also a journal's responsibility to investigate whether the researcher's graduate students were compensated in accordance with their universities' regulations? Or whether any illegal discrimination occurred in the choice of those grad researchers? Or whether the collectors were compensated fairly, and paid taxes on that compensation? Or whether the collectors used forced labor to harvest the animals? Why a half dozen centipedes would be more worthy of protection than any of those people, I can't imagine.

 

[goliathusdavid]

Exactly what evidence is there that the researcher violated any law? The cited article does not establish that he did. It isn't even stated that Doménech set foot in the Philippines. Are these animals CITES listed?



You didn't check, then. Ironic.

https://www.fws.gov/le/pdffiles/Lacey.pdf

In order for civil or criminal penalties, the offense must have been committed "knowingly", according to at least US federal wildlife law (that's one reason why the tens of thousands of owners of Australian reptile pets aren't arrested). When I order something from overseas, I do not check the laws in the shipper's country to see if I owe any duties on the sale. I don't check to see if the product is legal for sale, or is stolen.

If it is the responsibility of journals to investigate whether collection was done legally, is it also a journal's responsibility to investigate whether the researcher's graduate students were compensated in accordance with their universities' regulations? Or whether any illegal discrimination occurred in the choice of those grad researchers? Or whether the collectors were compensated fairly, and paid taxes on that compensation? Or whether the collectors used forced labor to harvest the animals? Why a half dozen centipedes would be more worthy of protection than any of those people, I can't imagine.

It IS clear that the researcher violated the law. The people who collected and exported were legally permitted but HE had not assigned any agreement with the Philippine DENR, therefore making the exportation and his receiving of the specimens (as well as subsequent research) illegal. Its clear he broke the law, even if he did not know about it. And as this is not a US researcher, I don't believe Lacey is applicable here. Also, its not like Lacey (and saying I didn't know) completely exonerates you from investigation. That's not how it works. The Philippine government is free to make whatever case they choose.
As for the responsibilities of journals to investigate the legality of the conducted research, I don't think its unreasonable to check that specimens were obtained legally. Work conditions and the like are, in my opinion, not applicable because they are not the basis for the published content.

 

[Malum Argenteum]

therefore making the exportation and his receiving of the specimens (as well as subsequent research) illegal

That is not what the article states.

"But the Philippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources says it is illegal to sell specimens to a foreign researcher who has not signed an agreement with DENR."

"Illegal to sell" ≠ "Illegal to buy". It was illegal for VW to sell me a diesel car with cheating emissions in 2011; it was not illegal that I bought one.

Also, how is the research illegal? Under what statute?

I appealed to Lacey to show that a false claim was made above. But if Spain has stronger legislation than Lacey, please cite it.

I don't think all the handwaving is appropriate support of condemnatory claims, that's all. I think the bar is higher.

 

[goliathusdavid]

That is not what the article states.

"But the Philippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources says it is illegal to sell specimens to a foreign researcher who has not signed an agreement with DENR."

"Illegal to sell" ≠ "Illegal to buy". It was illegal for VW to sell me a diesel car with cheating emissions in 2011; it was not illegal that I bought one.

Also, how is the research illegal? Under what statute?

I appealed to Lacey to show that a false claim was made above. But if Spain has stronger legislation than Lacey, please cite it.

I don't think all the handwaving is appropriate support of condemnatory claims, that's all. I think the bar is higher.

The article also clearly states that Doménech "didn't know he needed permits to export the centipedes." He needed permits. Permits which he did not have because he had not signed with DENR. Therefore his possession of the specimens was illegal, and his research was on illegally obtained specimens. Doménech broke Philippine law, and as I don't believe any Lacey equivalent exists in the Philippines, the government is totally and completely within its rights to prosecute him. And frankly, he should have known the law. He just should have. But the fact that he didn't doesn't actually matter. The Philippines still has a case.

I also want to go back to something for a second. You state the following in a previous post: "In order for civil or criminal penalties, the offense must have been committed 'knowingly', according to at least US federal wildlife law (that's one reason why the tens of thousands of owners of Australian reptile pets aren't arrested). When I order something from overseas, I do not check the laws in the shipper's country to see if I owe any duties on the sale. I don't check to see if the product is legal for sale, or is stolen."

Really? You don't check to see if the products you are purchasing are being brought to you as a result of trafficking? That is really, REALLY pushing the protection you get out of "knowingly", and frankly I think a prosecution might be able to make a compelling case that you knew the law, and just chose to ignore it. Also I have to admit to being very curious about what you are importing.

Finally sorry about your VW. Same thing happened with my family. Bought a hybrid after that.

 

[Malum Argenteum]

Really? You don't check to see if the products you are purchasing are being brought to you as a result of trafficking? That is really, REALLY pushing the protection you get out of "knowingly", and frankly I think a prosecution might be able to make a compelling case that you knew the law, and just chose to ignore it. Also I have to admit to being very curious about what you are importing.

I've purchased swimming pool accessories from Canada, and more and more household items (furniture sort of stuff, often, or electronics) I purchase on Amazon and eBay are shipped directly from China. Never checked anything. Do you?

 

[goliathusdavid]

The only things I've bought imported online are a couple deadstock specimens (through US sellers) that I know are ethically sourced. And in person, just silverware and clothing (though yes, I know the latter has tremendous human rights implications depending on where you are buying from.) Also I would argue that it's a little different when it comes to wildlife, though others might disagree. In my defense however, the illegal wildlife trade is the third largest illegal trade after guns and drugs, whereas I don't think there's a huge black market for pool toys.
Protections under the Lacey act are also specific to wildlife...

 

[Frogdaddy]

QUOTE="Malum Argenteum, post: 3152827, member: 154729"]
Exactly what evidence is there that the researcher violated any law? The cited article does not establish that he did. It isn't even stated that Doménech set foot in the Philippines. Are these animals CITES listed?



You didn't check, then. Ironic.

https://www.fws.gov/le/pdffiles/Lacey.pdf

In order for civil or criminal penalties, the offense must have been committed "knowingly", according to at least US federal wildlife law (that's one reason why the tens of thousands of owners of Australian reptile pets aren't arrested). When I order something from overseas, I do not check the laws in the shipper's country to see if I owe any duties on the sale. I don't check to see if the product is legal for sale, or is stolen.

If it is the responsibility of journals to investigate whether collection was done legally, is it also a journal's responsibility to investigate whether the researcher's graduate students were compensated in accordance with their universities' regulations? Or whether any illegal discrimination occurred in the choice of those grad researchers? Or whether the collectors were compensated fairly, and paid taxes on that compensation? Or whether the collectors used forced labor to harvest the animals? Why a half dozen centipedes would be more worthy of protection than any of those people, I can't imagine.
[/QUOTE]
That would be great if this involved the U.S. and the Lacey Act, but it doesn't. The researcher is alleged to have violated a Philippine law. He is the one who had to obtain permits per Philippine law. The U.S., Spain, the Lacey Act are irrelevant in reference to this story.
What's more disturbing about your statement is your unsolicited admission that you don't care if your animals are legal, smuggled, poached, endangered, etc. I hope I'm wrong about this, but that's how it reads.