**5.1 Power conflicts**

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

<sup>5</sup> 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 method to be applied.

Zoological Collections and the Effects of Scientific Territorialism 185

material or even to receive financial support. The bigger the collection, the higher the possibility to work with different taxonomic groups and therefore the probability of publication increases. The merit of a museum goes not only to the researchers but also to all the agents that participate in the institution: the keeper, the guard, those who work with

Unfortunately, not all collections have comparable scientific capitals to work with. Usually peripheral collections can only count with the students and researches for cleaning, managing, and financial support. That's one reason why their stored material cannot produce much beyond the local biodiversity. That's all the money investment and structure

In a strict sense the largest funds for collections are obtained by their researchers (past, present and future) that, beyond their efforts, manage to support and to start new projects or to continue old ones. For example, in the Brazilian evaluation system a researcher has more credibility and facility to have his project approved the more he has already accomplished. So the strength of a researcher is determined by the quality level of his curriculum, which is reflected in the amount of publications, titles, projects, financial history, awards, etc (Oliveira, 2009). Having a good curriculum may facilitate being invited to participate in committees, to be a coordinator, an evaluator or to belong to other bureaucratic functions. Equally, you may find professionals that, although they do not have the best curriculums, end up assuming these higher positions. This becomes a tool to get financial profits. For Bourdieu (1984) the academic administrators could be a compensatory substitute for the non-accomplishment of prestige by means of research. Either way, both

One of the highest valued scientific accomplishments is to obtain recognition for the development of science, in the form of inventions, discoveries and publications in the most prestigious publishing houses (Bourdieu, 1997). Our discourse promotes recognition. Considering that not everyone can discuss all subjects at any one time, the discourse in an article represents the power that you have over that specific area of knowledge (Foucault, 1971). This striving for the reconnaissance of our accomplishment explains much restraint in the sharing of primary zoological information. There is always conscious or unconscious fear that someone else will achieve prestige ahead of us. This is quite interesting when compared with animal social behavior. Notwithstanding how awkward it may seem, sometimes scientists act as if they were protecting their animals-objects-data, in the same way that animals may protect their territory. This struggle for data only occurs because the number of publications and citations give prestige to authors in the scientific world (Christoffersen et al., 2009). This provokes a dispute of egos accompanied by a distorted notion of power associated with a pseudo-hierarchy created by the amounts of publications. Resembling territorial behavior, which becomes manifest as sympathy for the objects of study, this may result in lifetime disputes among scientists. All these little conflicts delay the rapid dissemination of information and reduce efficiency in the retrieval of data. It also may create awkward personal conflicts of interest, for example, regarding authorship of eventual

It could be stated that the enigmatic aspect of such protection does not reside in the actual possession of the collections themselves, but in the knowledge capital that can be generated

marketing and public relations, the director, counselors, and so on.

can afford.

cases reflect conditions of power.

papers to be published (Fig. 4).

compounded with relations of strength. These strengths compete with each other to maintain or to transform the field in question in order to benefit one side. So, the scientific field can be described as a physical and ideological world that comprises relations of strength and relations of dominance. Strength is determined by how much the scientific community knows you through your work, and dominance is connected to the issue involving hierarchy, which is not separated from the first aspect. These relations are determined by the distribution of scientific capital (Bourdieu, 1984).

In a simpler way, scientific capital represents a form of power. For Foucault (1979), the power is not a natural object or a thing, it does not actually exist. What exist are social practices or relations of power. Therefore, power is not a unique or global entity. It exists in disparate, heterogeneous forms and is always in constant transformation. As such, it is built historically. It may be represented in a central or peripheral situation, in a macro or micro level. Which means to say that power is something exercised, performed, functional (Foucault, 1979) and is therefore symbolic (Bourdieu, 2002). It is struggle, confrontation, the building of strength relations in strategic situations. It is not a place to occupy, nor an object to own. It is not even univocal, a one-sided situation. In this struggle, you may lose or win. Power is a producer of individuality. The individual is a production of power and knowledge. All knowledge, scientific or ideological, can only exist under political conditions. These conditions are necessary to form the subject as the knowledge domain. The fundamental aspect of this analysis is to realize that knowledge and power imply reciprocity: there are no relations of power without the constitution of a knowledge field, as also the reciprocal, all knowledge constitutes new relations of power (Foucault, 1979).

There exist two forms of scientific capital that correspond to two forms of power: the political and the specific. The political power is temporal and it is connected to the fulfillment of important positions inside the institutions, laboratories, departments, boards. This kind of power reflects the possibility to command the scientific production through evaluation boards, as chief-editors, administrators, etc. The specific power is that strictly connected to the research, to the study. It will provide prestige and reconnaissance (Bourdieu, 1997).

Based on those ideas the collection, as well as the museum, the institution and the researcher, are characterized by their own capital. The volume of capital determines its space and strength. These capitals are compared to each other and also to the physical structure into which they are inserted. Depending on the fragility of their capital, the results from these comparisons may be hard to accept by the individuals involved (Bourdieu, 1997). For example, a powerful zoological collection should be sustained on these foundations: a good representation of animals; a large structure with sufficient capacity to conserve the specimens in an ideal way; a group of employees and a group of scientist working and publishing their efforts; and investment funds. So, a powerful zoological collection would aggregate both sorts of scientific capital: those that provide the physical structure and those that provide the intellectual structure. If one of these foundations is week or is missing, then you lose capital, i.e. a great scientist cannot work in plenitude with badly shaped specimens, or a large collection is worthless without specialists working with it. So any basic fragility affects the possibility to obtain funds for research.

When the strength of a collection is found in the amount of material deposited, it is very profitable because this museum, collection or institution becomes the first choice to store

compounded with relations of strength. These strengths compete with each other to maintain or to transform the field in question in order to benefit one side. So, the scientific field can be described as a physical and ideological world that comprises relations of strength and relations of dominance. Strength is determined by how much the scientific community knows you through your work, and dominance is connected to the issue involving hierarchy, which is not separated from the first aspect. These relations are

In a simpler way, scientific capital represents a form of power. For Foucault (1979), the power is not a natural object or a thing, it does not actually exist. What exist are social practices or relations of power. Therefore, power is not a unique or global entity. It exists in disparate, heterogeneous forms and is always in constant transformation. As such, it is built historically. It may be represented in a central or peripheral situation, in a macro or micro level. Which means to say that power is something exercised, performed, functional (Foucault, 1979) and is therefore symbolic (Bourdieu, 2002). It is struggle, confrontation, the building of strength relations in strategic situations. It is not a place to occupy, nor an object to own. It is not even univocal, a one-sided situation. In this struggle, you may lose or win. Power is a producer of individuality. The individual is a production of power and knowledge. All knowledge, scientific or ideological, can only exist under political conditions. These conditions are necessary to form the subject as the knowledge domain. The fundamental aspect of this analysis is to realize that knowledge and power imply reciprocity: there are no relations of power without the constitution of a knowledge field, as also the reciprocal, all knowledge constitutes new relations of power (Foucault, 1979).

There exist two forms of scientific capital that correspond to two forms of power: the political and the specific. The political power is temporal and it is connected to the fulfillment of important positions inside the institutions, laboratories, departments, boards. This kind of power reflects the possibility to command the scientific production through evaluation boards, as chief-editors, administrators, etc. The specific power is that strictly connected to the

Based on those ideas the collection, as well as the museum, the institution and the researcher, are characterized by their own capital. The volume of capital determines its space and strength. These capitals are compared to each other and also to the physical structure into which they are inserted. Depending on the fragility of their capital, the results from these comparisons may be hard to accept by the individuals involved (Bourdieu, 1997). For example, a powerful zoological collection should be sustained on these foundations: a good representation of animals; a large structure with sufficient capacity to conserve the specimens in an ideal way; a group of employees and a group of scientist working and publishing their efforts; and investment funds. So, a powerful zoological collection would aggregate both sorts of scientific capital: those that provide the physical structure and those that provide the intellectual structure. If one of these foundations is week or is missing, then you lose capital, i.e. a great scientist cannot work in plenitude with badly shaped specimens, or a large collection is worthless without specialists working with it. So any basic fragility

When the strength of a collection is found in the amount of material deposited, it is very profitable because this museum, collection or institution becomes the first choice to store

research, to the study. It will provide prestige and reconnaissance (Bourdieu, 1997).

affects the possibility to obtain funds for research.

determined by the distribution of scientific capital (Bourdieu, 1984).

material or even to receive financial support. The bigger the collection, the higher the possibility to work with different taxonomic groups and therefore the probability of publication increases. The merit of a museum goes not only to the researchers but also to all the agents that participate in the institution: the keeper, the guard, those who work with marketing and public relations, the director, counselors, and so on.

Unfortunately, not all collections have comparable scientific capitals to work with. Usually peripheral collections can only count with the students and researches for cleaning, managing, and financial support. That's one reason why their stored material cannot produce much beyond the local biodiversity. That's all the money investment and structure can afford.

In a strict sense the largest funds for collections are obtained by their researchers (past, present and future) that, beyond their efforts, manage to support and to start new projects or to continue old ones. For example, in the Brazilian evaluation system a researcher has more credibility and facility to have his project approved the more he has already accomplished. So the strength of a researcher is determined by the quality level of his curriculum, which is reflected in the amount of publications, titles, projects, financial history, awards, etc (Oliveira, 2009). Having a good curriculum may facilitate being invited to participate in committees, to be a coordinator, an evaluator or to belong to other bureaucratic functions. Equally, you may find professionals that, although they do not have the best curriculums, end up assuming these higher positions. This becomes a tool to get financial profits. For Bourdieu (1984) the academic administrators could be a compensatory substitute for the non-accomplishment of prestige by means of research. Either way, both cases reflect conditions of power.

One of the highest valued scientific accomplishments is to obtain recognition for the development of science, in the form of inventions, discoveries and publications in the most prestigious publishing houses (Bourdieu, 1997). Our discourse promotes recognition. Considering that not everyone can discuss all subjects at any one time, the discourse in an article represents the power that you have over that specific area of knowledge (Foucault, 1971). This striving for the reconnaissance of our accomplishment explains much restraint in the sharing of primary zoological information. There is always conscious or unconscious fear that someone else will achieve prestige ahead of us. This is quite interesting when compared with animal social behavior. Notwithstanding how awkward it may seem, sometimes scientists act as if they were protecting their animals-objects-data, in the same way that animals may protect their territory. This struggle for data only occurs because the number of publications and citations give prestige to authors in the scientific world (Christoffersen et al., 2009). This provokes a dispute of egos accompanied by a distorted notion of power associated with a pseudo-hierarchy created by the amounts of publications. Resembling territorial behavior, which becomes manifest as sympathy for the objects of study, this may result in lifetime disputes among scientists. All these little conflicts delay the rapid dissemination of information and reduce efficiency in the retrieval of data. It also may create awkward personal conflicts of interest, for example, regarding authorship of eventual papers to be published (Fig. 4).

It could be stated that the enigmatic aspect of such protection does not reside in the actual possession of the collections themselves, but in the knowledge capital that can be generated

Zoological Collections and the Effects of Scientific Territorialism 187

he feels the need to fight for his rights, defending "his" animal-object as if it were his own

But in some cases, when this foreigner is a specialist in the animal-object in question, there's an interest in establishing the partnership. Pretty interesting! In such cases the threat turns into profit. The scientist that, in a first instance, posed as having the "rights" (=power over the animal-object studied), in a second moment donates all his power to share these rights (=authorship). This represents a struggle for the second scientific capital, the specific one. The relation Scientist x Institutions is a bit more complicated because the collections, as the researchers working in it, are under the control by those with administrative functions (=power over the decisions about investment funds and over the physical structure of the collections) (see Waast & Gaillard, 1992). These last may be of two instances: only bureaucrats or scientists as well. The first usually doesn't feel attached to the collection because they no longer do research or never did. The "political scientist" that still does some research may create affection for the collection. There are plenty of possibilities, but two of them are most popular: when a visitor arrives to work with the same group, the chances for that to happen are minimal (who is going to take the work of the boss?); or he may sympathize with the person and propose project supervision with a fellowship, or some

Regarding professional relationships, a researcher may develop a charisma for his institution and fight for it (sometimes becoming territorial in the sense of not wanting to lend materials and not authorizing loans). In another situation the institutional commander may not sympathize with some researcher from his own or outside institution, thus

So, inside the relations Scientists x Institutions, political power itself is at work, or then

The relation Institution x Institution are always seen as profit6. In spite of linguistic, cultural and ethnic differences, the alliances (national and international scientific exchange) can be very productive, opening new perspectives for the development of technologies (Christoffersen, 2002). If you took a deeper look you will realize that these relations will be

So inside collections there exists a whole hierarchy of science coercing. In other words, the administrative and the research person, each one pulling the rope to his side, delimit the boundaries of possibilities for each other. There also exist, inside and outside of this hierarchy, invisible disputes, or other subtleties for the gain of power. On the bureaucratic side this is reflected by the possibility of control or even by the capability for decision in several areas of administrative procedures and physical structure. On the researcher side,

6 Except when alliances results in unequal relations: when 3rd world scientists are treated as helpers,

property (=territory). This also affects special issues concerning publications:

Will my chances of publications be harmed? Will I or should I establish a partnership? Who is going to be the first author?

other form of collaboration.

arranging innumerable restrictions or obstacles.

political power associated with some specific power.

steered by the other types of relationships discussed above.

cheap labor and of limited intellect (see Christoffersen, 2002).

Who will take the credit for the novelty of the work?

from them through publications and recognition in the scientific community. But this is not entirely correct. The emotions of the scientist cannot and must not be separated and neglected. Let's explain why. Usually in any zoological collection there exist a certain number of taxonomic groups that are in standby because there are no researchers to work with them. So, if the only correct premise where to obtain scientific prestige, the biologists would fight over obtaining the whole collection for themselves, since there is plenty of data available to fulfill this objective. Instead, they only struggle for one or two groups. The situation is more complex than it seems to be at first site, and it could also be extended to a lot of other scientific areas (i.e. psychology, history, philosophy, etc.) not to mention just sociology. As Edgar Morin (2005) loves to assert so strongly, we must not mutilate reality into a few specific areas of knowledge, we should try to understand the reality in its own complexity.

Fig. 4. Territorial (=unpublished data) conflicts among researchers.

Looking at this picture of zoological collections, we can do an analysis from three points of view: the relations of Scientists x Scientists, Scientists x Institutions, and Institutions x Institutions.

The relationship Scientists x Scientists may be disturbing when foreign visitors arrive to work with the same taxonomic group, especially with the same project. This is awkward because the local researcher may feel like he's being injured by the new company. Therefore,

from them through publications and recognition in the scientific community. But this is not entirely correct. The emotions of the scientist cannot and must not be separated and neglected. Let's explain why. Usually in any zoological collection there exist a certain number of taxonomic groups that are in standby because there are no researchers to work with them. So, if the only correct premise where to obtain scientific prestige, the biologists would fight over obtaining the whole collection for themselves, since there is plenty of data available to fulfill this objective. Instead, they only struggle for one or two groups. The situation is more complex than it seems to be at first site, and it could also be extended to a lot of other scientific areas (i.e. psychology, history, philosophy, etc.) not to mention just sociology. As Edgar Morin (2005) loves to assert so strongly, we must not mutilate reality into a few specific areas of knowledge, we should try to understand the reality in its own

Fig. 4. Territorial (=unpublished data) conflicts among researchers.

Looking at this picture of zoological collections, we can do an analysis from three points of view: the relations of Scientists x Scientists, Scientists x Institutions, and Institutions x

The relationship Scientists x Scientists may be disturbing when foreign visitors arrive to work with the same taxonomic group, especially with the same project. This is awkward because the local researcher may feel like he's being injured by the new company. Therefore,

complexity.

Institutions.

he feels the need to fight for his rights, defending "his" animal-object as if it were his own property (=territory). This also affects special issues concerning publications:

Will my chances of publications be harmed? Will I or should I establish a partnership? Who is going to be the first author? Who will take the credit for the novelty of the work?

But in some cases, when this foreigner is a specialist in the animal-object in question, there's an interest in establishing the partnership. Pretty interesting! In such cases the threat turns into profit. The scientist that, in a first instance, posed as having the "rights" (=power over the animal-object studied), in a second moment donates all his power to share these rights (=authorship). This represents a struggle for the second scientific capital, the specific one.

The relation Scientist x Institutions is a bit more complicated because the collections, as the researchers working in it, are under the control by those with administrative functions (=power over the decisions about investment funds and over the physical structure of the collections) (see Waast & Gaillard, 1992). These last may be of two instances: only bureaucrats or scientists as well. The first usually doesn't feel attached to the collection because they no longer do research or never did. The "political scientist" that still does some research may create affection for the collection. There are plenty of possibilities, but two of them are most popular: when a visitor arrives to work with the same group, the chances for that to happen are minimal (who is going to take the work of the boss?); or he may sympathize with the person and propose project supervision with a fellowship, or some other form of collaboration.

Regarding professional relationships, a researcher may develop a charisma for his institution and fight for it (sometimes becoming territorial in the sense of not wanting to lend materials and not authorizing loans). In another situation the institutional commander may not sympathize with some researcher from his own or outside institution, thus arranging innumerable restrictions or obstacles.

So, inside the relations Scientists x Institutions, political power itself is at work, or then political power associated with some specific power.

The relation Institution x Institution are always seen as profit6. In spite of linguistic, cultural and ethnic differences, the alliances (national and international scientific exchange) can be very productive, opening new perspectives for the development of technologies (Christoffersen, 2002). If you took a deeper look you will realize that these relations will be steered by the other types of relationships discussed above.

So inside collections there exists a whole hierarchy of science coercing. In other words, the administrative and the research person, each one pulling the rope to his side, delimit the boundaries of possibilities for each other. There also exist, inside and outside of this hierarchy, invisible disputes, or other subtleties for the gain of power. On the bureaucratic side this is reflected by the possibility of control or even by the capability for decision in several areas of administrative procedures and physical structure. On the researcher side,

<sup>6</sup> Except when alliances results in unequal relations: when 3rd world scientists are treated as helpers, cheap labor and of limited intellect (see Christoffersen, 2002).

Zoological Collections and the Effects of Scientific Territorialism 189

the struggle against a prey or predator; rivals for alpha males, in fights for primacy, for

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

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

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

1. All material in the collection can be studied by anyone who wishes to, with few

b. The researcher is not connected with any institution or university program.

3. All material that is deposited at the collection is a public property under the guard of

4. All the right of the research is of the scientist, who must quote the collaboration of the

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

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

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

decisions. It is his duty to choose his values and finalities (Morin, 2004).

domination, for conquest of females (Morin, 2004).

feels like the owner of the taxonomic groups.

project with the same group.

juridical foundation, despite their particularities.

2. All research must result in scientific publications.

protocols to be followed, for example:

exceptions:

the institution.

**5.3 Beyond collections** 

collection and institution.

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