**5.3 Beyond collections**

We realize that the interest conflicts observed in this chapter are verifiable in other biological areas as ecology, ethology, etc. Actually such a conduct pertains to all nonscientifically fields with human interactions, as in medicine (doctor-patient relationships), in

Zoological Collections and the Effects of Scientific Territorialism 191

This chapter shows that zoological collections face a sociological issue of knowledge production and ownership. We realize that not all zoological collections are characterized by these kinds of antagonistic relationships. But, in a straightforward sense, animal collections are properties that require tremendous investments in money, time, and expertise for their acquisition and management. Although biodiversity information is an intellectual property of the institution in which the collection is housed, the access to these properties must thus

Paradoxically, scientific knowledge is increased through its vast dissemination. It is crucial that the knowledge capital that can be generated from scientific collections, in the form of publications and general recognition in the scientific community, can be of free access. In other words, in spite of unpublished data, the biodiversity information obtained by means of public investments must be of open access for public use. The adequate and wide uses of such biodiversity information will increase their appreciation as an institutional resource.

The puzzle, then, is how to transfer the actual possession of collections themselves (the property rights), to other researchers capable of generating from them the best knowledge capital that these collections potentially provide without promoting disagreements. We know that marginality and creativity are not opposed conditions (Christoffersen, 2002; Gardner, 1996). That is why cooperation and synergism are thus crucial elements for the rise and propagation of scientific knowledge. Great partnerships and joint projects are also

Thus, defining who will have access and do research on these institutional biodiversity repositories becomes fundamental for defining the conditions of a research protocol and

We have tried to expose the reality found in some biological collections. Ethical, financial and framework problems were depicted in order to understand collection dynamics. We realize the level of complexity that emerges from these considerations. Notwithstanding, we do not attempt to solve these problems by offering a banal, simple and, perhaps, utopian solution. Instead, we leave here a first step for future considerations. To conclude in a nutshell, we have reflected that only what people manage to agree upon will represent the

We are thankful to the staff of the Laboratory of Marine Invertebrates, Federal University of Paraíba, for all the discussions and debates during coffee-breaks. We acknowledge Ms. Carmen Alonso for the suggestion of the theme that turned into this chapter. We are grateful to M.Sc. Nivaldo A. Leo Neto, Mr. Pedro Langsch and M.Sc. Fernando A. D. Barros Junior for the sociological recommendations. M.Sc. Silvio Lima helped us with the pictures. Mr. Flávio Felipe de Carvalho is thanked for the cartoon drawings. We also thank Intech for this publication opportunity. This research was supported by a graduate scholarship from Conselho de Avaliação da Pesquisa do Ensino Superior to L.P.R. and by a productivity grant

Their misuses and unnecessary restrictions will compromise their utility.

accomplished by many scientists who work in laboratories (Joly, 1997).

**6. Conclusion** 

be guarded or regulated at all costs.

establishing collaborations.

**7. Acknowledgments** 

rule or arrangements to be followed.

hierarchical positions in a factory (boss, manager, workers), in public transportation (driver, collector, passenger), etc. Moral pluralism is real and ever present, affecting professional relationships (Englehardt Jr., 1996). Thus there is a primacy for ethics, according to Emmanuel Lévinas (Hughes, 1998). A new basic philosophy of bioethics is becoming fashionable to deal with moral diversity. If such a bioethics is ever possible (Engelhardt Jr., 2006), it must concern the relationships between nature and human beings, must value relativism, and must be grounded on the traditional ethos of each region (Sakamoto, 1999). In any case, bioethics becomes necessary to advance scientific knowledge in all areas of human interaction. The basis of such an integrated ethics is rational and naturalistic, that is, biological and evolutionary (Chiarelli & Birolo, 2011). Our present moral philosophy must be directed to guarantee the survival of man as an individual or as a group of individuals co-operating and living together in peace within communities.

In this context, we believe that the discourse ethics in Jürgen Habermas' moral theory is enlightening (Habermas, 1990). According to this author, language is the bridge that connects people and communication is a countervailing force against arbitrary power (Vandenberghe, 2011). Practical questions can in principle be settled by way of argumentation. Emancipation refers to a learning process by which a subject experiences how to change when it learns to see itself through the eyes of others (Habermas, 1971). Thus discourse ethics, as well as playing a role in justifying the ethical principles that underlie contemporary liberal democracy (Habermas, 1998), also provides a perspective for reconciling the powers inherent in real, practical discourse.

When pre-established ethical norms and ethical commissions fail to resolve pending conflicts, successful communication among confronting parties remains a last resource for reaching an agreement and mutual understanding. An agreement may be considered fair when all parties concerned have been afforded a maximum opportunity to give reasons or to state arguments before a final decision is reached. "Only those norms can claim to be valid that meet (or could meet) with the approval of all affected in their capacity as participants in a practical discourse" (Habermas, 1990).

We also find that what Hans-George Gadamer has said on philosophical hermeneutics is relevant to dialogue and conversation, as a guide to the interpretation and understanding of other peoples thinking when this conflicts with our own views. This is what he says: "Conversation is a process of two people understanding each other. Thus it is a characteristic of every true conversation that each opens himself to the other person, truly accepts his point of view as worthy of consideration, and gets inside the other to such an extent that he understands not a particular individual, but what he says. The thing that has to be grasped is the objective rightness, or otherwise, of his opinion, so that they can agree with each other on a subject" (Gadamer, 1979).

Bohm et al. (1991) established three basic conditions of dialogue: (1) Participants must suspend their assumptions; (2) participants must view each other as colleagues or peers; (3) in the early stages there needs to be a facilitator who 'holds the context' of dialogue.

Through conversation, testing our prejudices, searching our meaning, we become more critical (Smith, 2001). We may even be able to catch the collective consciousness (Bohm, 1996).
