[Taxacom] [iczn-list] Call for Comments: Taxonomic Practice and the Code
Kim van der Linde
kim at kimvdlinde.com
Wed Jan 8 13:32:57 CST 2014
On 1/8/2014 1:01 PM, Doug Yanega wrote:
> I find it a little disappointing, though not really surprising, that
> despite my call to NOT initiate a public flurry of comments, several
> people have felt compelled to do exactly that. However, it does at
> least afford the opportunity to point out a few additional details.
I am sorry, I should have clarified that I purposefully ignored your
request. I think that a public discussion of such an explosive issue is
> On 1/7/14 6:44 PM, Kim van der Linde wrote:
>> I will submit an comment through the formal channels, and it will be
>> along the line of: HELL NO!
> The solicitation is not phrased as a yes or no question; please read
> the final paragraph carefully. If I had to summarize the solicitation
> into a single question, it would be this:
> "Given that we are about to write a new Code, what, if anything,
> should this new Code say regarding ethics?"
> Does that make things clearer for people?
Okay, let me rephrase my response: NOTHING.
And let me explain why. When the commission gets to police whether
things are done ethically or not, and whether something is good science
or not. The questions in the article explicitly states: "including a
failure to adhere to proper standards of scientific conduct" This is
opening a can of worms orf each persons own favorite taxon. Why, because
in order to do this, we first have to define what the "proper standard
for scientific conduct" are. They are NOT defined in the article, and
hence we have to assume that after the comments are in, and the
commission decides that it has a mandate, they go back in chambers and
craft a set of "proper standards for scientific conduct". What is going
to be considered improper, and what will be considered proper? Will a
patronyms be considered improper? Or not. Will ignoring valid names by
what some consider rogue taxonomists, despite being published correctly
according to the CODE be considered improper, or will we consider the
names by the 'rogue' taxonomist improper and therefore invalid?
The CODE's power relies on a voluntary adherence by taxonomists at large
to the rules. The worst thing that could happen is that if a sizable
minority gets fed up with ethics rulings and decides to go rogue as a
group, publishing their own version of the CODE. That would be a mess.
The last thing we want is a disintegration of the CODE/commission into
multiple fractions. I personally would like to see a discussion about
how the CODE and the commission can become more relevant for the biology
community at large, instead of adding an additional explosive aspect to
More information about the Taxacom