**5.2 Ethical implications**

One of the causes of all such disputes is provoked by the disagreements that may arise concerning the authorship of the works in publications.

Does one invite the other fellow researcher who works with the same group as me? Should I or must I? Should I include the name of my fellow (invite him to participate in my paper) for ethical reasons even if he didn't collaborate with it or only collaborated eventually? Should I invite him only for interest in future partnership?

What if I publish my work all by myself? Will this occasion discomfort? Would the other researcher try to harm me at my institution?

Which decisions are ethical?

All these questions may pass throw the researcher´s mind. Who should decide how to answer them? Each collection has its own policies or habits. There are those who adopt the following criterion: if one did the work alone then one publishes alone and therefore receives all the prestige. Others opt for publication in groups, with partnerships, and therefore for each new publication the whole group will participate again. This is particularly profitable, considering scientific evaluation nowadays.

These questions are quite difficult for the scientist to answer considering the nature of ethics. The individual and society have a double nature. The individual has the powerful principle of egocentrism that stimulates him to be selfish while the society has rivalry, competition, and struggle between the selfish. Society doesn't manage to impose its ethical norms to all individuals. These don't have an ethical behavior that overcomes selfish behavior at all times. This problem becomes worse in very complex societies, where the integration of traditional sympathy bonds is inseparable from the development of individuality (Morin, 2004). Remember that individuality is produced by power (Foucault, 1979).

Ethical sources are also natural because they are older than humanity. The principle of inclusion is prescript at the self-socio-biological organization of the individual, which is transmitted through a genetic path. Mammal societies are communal and rival; they feel at the same time an egocentric conflict and sympathy for the enemies outside. Sympathy for

<sup>7</sup> We do not agree with such a simplistic evalution system inside the sciences, because it leads to an artificial partitioning of a scientific work into as many articles as possible, reflecting the greeds of the professional, who, seduced by this system, aims to take maximal advantages of it. This is also a consequence of manufacturing sciences, who see all the professionals as employees (see Callon & Foray, 1997; Oliveira, 2009).

this power is reflected in prestige, which is assigned to the number of publications7 or, in an indirect way, to the possession of the animals-objects that will provide data which will result in publications. So, all this behavior (try to continue being the only one to work with a group), aggravated by the anguish of feeling threatened by our neighbor (since all scientists are clients and competitors at the same time, as Bourdieu affirms), would be similar to the territorial defense of social animals. This could be justified by the pressure that all researchers suffer as a consequence of the scientific system, especially those scientists that

One of the causes of all such disputes is provoked by the disagreements that may arise

Does one invite the other fellow researcher who works with the same group as me?

Should I include the name of my fellow (invite him to participate in my paper) for ethical reasons even if he didn't collaborate with it or only collaborated eventually?

What if I publish my work all by myself? Will this occasion discomfort? Would the

All these questions may pass throw the researcher´s mind. Who should decide how to answer them? Each collection has its own policies or habits. There are those who adopt the following criterion: if one did the work alone then one publishes alone and therefore receives all the prestige. Others opt for publication in groups, with partnerships, and therefore for each new publication the whole group will participate again. This is

These questions are quite difficult for the scientist to answer considering the nature of ethics. The individual and society have a double nature. The individual has the powerful principle of egocentrism that stimulates him to be selfish while the society has rivalry, competition, and struggle between the selfish. Society doesn't manage to impose its ethical norms to all individuals. These don't have an ethical behavior that overcomes selfish behavior at all times. This problem becomes worse in very complex societies, where the integration of traditional sympathy bonds is inseparable from the development of individuality (Morin,

Ethical sources are also natural because they are older than humanity. The principle of inclusion is prescript at the self-socio-biological organization of the individual, which is transmitted through a genetic path. Mammal societies are communal and rival; they feel at the same time an egocentric conflict and sympathy for the enemies outside. Sympathy for

7 We do not agree with such a simplistic evalution system inside the sciences, because it leads to an artificial partitioning of a scientific work into as many articles as possible, reflecting the greeds of the professional, who, seduced by this system, aims to take maximal advantages of it. This is also a consequence of manufacturing sciences, who see all the professionals as employees (see Callon & Foray,

are inserted in a small, local, regional, peripheral and marginal collection.

Should I invite him only for interest in future partnership?

particularly profitable, considering scientific evaluation nowadays.

2004). Remember that individuality is produced by power (Foucault, 1979).

other researcher try to harm me at my institution?

concerning the authorship of the works in publications.

**5.2 Ethical implications** 

Should I or must I?

1997; Oliveira, 2009).

Which decisions are ethical?

the struggle against a prey or predator; rivals for alpha males, in fights for primacy, for domination, for conquest of females (Morin, 2004).

Human societies developed and incorporated this double sociological character: the interestrivalry relation and the community bond. The feeling of community is and will be a source of responsibility and sympathy, and these are sources of ethics. Individuality is the source of personal responsibility by your life conduct, and it is also the source of strength of egocentrism. It grows in all fields and tends to inhibit the altruistic and sympathy potentialities, and this contributes to the disintegration of several groups (Morin, 2004).

The bases of ethical crisis belong to a general crisis of the certainty foundations: philosophical knowledge foundation crises and scientific knowledge foundation crises. This is emergence without knowing what emerges. Ethics, as emergence, depends on the social and historical conditions that make it emerge. But it is the individual that makes ethical decisions. It is his duty to choose his values and finalities (Morin, 2004).

So ethics is a relative aspect and that's why some institutions and museums, that usually have a large structure, utilize committees of morals or councils of ethics to decide about authorship, among other things. Usually these places have a previously established policy to follow. In this way, an uncomfortable situation may be avoided. In smaller collections these boards do not exist and the decisions of possible conflict are solved by the curator or even by the professionals themselves. In these cases the problems usually turn into personal problems, where the scientist does not differentiate professional from personal life, since he feels like the owner of the taxonomic groups.

This is one of the reasons why all zoological collections should implant an ethical committee, no matter how small they are. The optimal would be to standardize some protocols to be followed, for example:

	- a. This material is already being studied at that specific moment in that same collection, and, therefore, there is no reason for two persons to develop the same project with the same group.
	- b. The researcher is not connected with any institution or university program.

This protocol should take into account the particular needs of each collection. For example, consider the differences as well as the similarities between an entomological and a mastozoological collection. The elaboration of such a protocol should be accompanied by a juridical foundation, despite their particularities.
