**4. Researcher's conduct**

As we saw, great collections benefit from great funds. But biodiversity is not concentrated only in the vast scientific collections. A lot of important material is preserved in minor institutions. These peripheral collections are frequently forgotten. Resources, interests, time, support or special guidelines to make good collections are often missing. Most of the time, the management is made by the professionals themselves and the money necessary is provided by the researchers. The scientists, who use the zoological material from the collection, usually work together with the curator. This association guarantees some basic conditions and guarantees the continuing survival of the collection. As peripheral collections are usually smaller, each research becomes responsible for the group he works with. Collecting, identification, fixation, cataloguing and administration in practice become the responsibility of the scientists. This excessive dedication by the researchers makes them feel much attached to the animals-objects studied. This may sometimes retard the optimal collaboration between

Zoological Collections and the Effects of Scientific Territorialism 183

thus believe that they have some priority over the material they are studying for some reasonable amount of time (especially if the animal has some peculiarity as being an endangered species, a rare species, or a very difficult animal to collect – there being very few specimens in the collection). These assumptions may not always be entirely correct. Notwithstanding, for ethical reasons, the curator must respect those working on this group when new researchers arrive. In cases like this, the curator has to find a solution for both

Does this mean that only the older researcher working in a collection has the

Will the other researcher need to find another institution to be able to work on his

In traditional collections there usually is an established policy which is respected by those who work in the institution. For example, the paleontological protocol dictates that, while one researcher is writing primary descriptions of new material, other researchers cannot study it. In practice, that often means waiting years or decades until a senior researcher finishes a detailed reconstruction of the fossils under his charge (Gee, 1999). Probably this paleontological resolution was defined only after a huge quarrel centering on two 19th century zoologists, Cope versus March, over fossil bones, also known as the great dinosaur rush (Colbert, 1984). Each used devious methods to try to out-compete the other in the field, resorting to bribery, theft, and destruction of bones. Each scientist also attacked the other in scientific publications, seeking to ruin his credibility and have his funding cut off (Penick,

Another situation is also real: big collections tend to suffocate the marginal collections when projects such as making data available on internet and publishing catalogues are planned. Large collections usually house large amounts of previously published material, while smaller institutions are prone to be in the act of collecting, identifying and planning future publications. The first ones often use their coercive powers to obtain the rights over all unpublished data, claiming to avoid delays in making information public. This creates a natural resistance when researchers at these smaller collections are asked to simply share all their unpublished data. These events seems to be like vicious cycles and therefore justify

We realize that the universe of science is a social world. Consequently, impositions and solicitations are made. The scientific field, as any other (religion, industry, arts), is a ground

5 A recurrent, although not entirely satisfactory solution, is to convince one researcher to change the animal group or to alter significant details of his research project. That's one of the reasons we may see, more and more often, very similar projects, differing only in the species, the place of study, or the

why scientist tend to defend "their data" or "their collection".

scientists to be able to work.

group of interest?

1971; Romer, 1964).

**5. Discussion** 

**5.1 Power conflicts** 

method to be applied.

Can both do the same work?

privilege/right to work on it?

Proposals are made aiming at a resolution5.

If not, who is going to change and why? What are the criteria used to decide?

institutions because the researchers feel like the owners of their study material. There are those who go to such extents as to hide samples from other fellow visitors.

It is known that when a researcher from another institution arrives with the intent of studying a specific taxonomic group, he may encounter only a few broken, dried, immature, or otherwise scientifically less relevant data for the research in question. This may be equally true when material is requested on loan. The institution tries to avoid any chances of loosing material, refraining to loan to marginal collections or unknown researchers. This attitude is also enhanced by recent cases in which "international" material, already borrowed and on its path to the loaner, is detained at customs by the federal police and, sometimes, burned4.

Although scientific collections are of public domain, in theory, and therefore are accessible to consulting by other scientists, when new researchers arrive with a claim to study a specific group, conflict may arise (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3. Competition among researchers may occur for the same study group.

This is particularly true when these groups are already being studied by researchers or students at the institution in which the collection is housed. Scientists working on a group

<sup>4</sup> This has happened even when the necessary permission documents were avaiable, due to wrong interpretations by the police officers in the particulars regarding the objects under study.

institutions because the researchers feel like the owners of their study material. There are those

It is known that when a researcher from another institution arrives with the intent of studying a specific taxonomic group, he may encounter only a few broken, dried, immature, or otherwise scientifically less relevant data for the research in question. This may be equally true when material is requested on loan. The institution tries to avoid any chances of loosing material, refraining to loan to marginal collections or unknown researchers. This attitude is also enhanced by recent cases in which "international" material, already borrowed and on its path to the loaner, is detained at customs by the federal police and,

Although scientific collections are of public domain, in theory, and therefore are accessible to consulting by other scientists, when new researchers arrive with a claim to study a

Fig. 3. Competition among researchers may occur for the same study group.

interpretations by the police officers in the particulars regarding the objects under study.

This is particularly true when these groups are already being studied by researchers or students at the institution in which the collection is housed. Scientists working on a group

4 This has happened even when the necessary permission documents were avaiable, due to wrong

who go to such extents as to hide samples from other fellow visitors.

sometimes, burned4.

specific group, conflict may arise (Fig. 3).

thus believe that they have some priority over the material they are studying for some reasonable amount of time (especially if the animal has some peculiarity as being an endangered species, a rare species, or a very difficult animal to collect – there being very few specimens in the collection). These assumptions may not always be entirely correct. Notwithstanding, for ethical reasons, the curator must respect those working on this group when new researchers arrive. In cases like this, the curator has to find a solution for both scientists to be able to work.

Can both do the same work? If not, who is going to change and why? What are the criteria used to decide? Does this mean that only the older researcher working in a collection has the privilege/right to work on it? Will the other researcher need to find another institution to be able to work on his group of interest?

Proposals are made aiming at a resolution5.

In traditional collections there usually is an established policy which is respected by those who work in the institution. For example, the paleontological protocol dictates that, while one researcher is writing primary descriptions of new material, other researchers cannot study it. In practice, that often means waiting years or decades until a senior researcher finishes a detailed reconstruction of the fossils under his charge (Gee, 1999). Probably this paleontological resolution was defined only after a huge quarrel centering on two 19th century zoologists, Cope versus March, over fossil bones, also known as the great dinosaur rush (Colbert, 1984). Each used devious methods to try to out-compete the other in the field, resorting to bribery, theft, and destruction of bones. Each scientist also attacked the other in scientific publications, seeking to ruin his credibility and have his funding cut off (Penick, 1971; Romer, 1964).

Another situation is also real: big collections tend to suffocate the marginal collections when projects such as making data available on internet and publishing catalogues are planned. Large collections usually house large amounts of previously published material, while smaller institutions are prone to be in the act of collecting, identifying and planning future publications. The first ones often use their coercive powers to obtain the rights over all unpublished data, claiming to avoid delays in making information public. This creates a natural resistance when researchers at these smaller collections are asked to simply share all their unpublished data. These events seems to be like vicious cycles and therefore justify why scientist tend to defend "their data" or "their collection".
