Ah, irony (was: Unknown fruit & other plants...)

[Richard Pyle]

Just the other night my wife pointed out this same irony to me -- that
"celebrities" (Hollywood, sports, TV, etc.) get paid inordinate amounts of
money for (often) mundane talent and appealing appearances; whereas
academics (of all ilks -- scientists, teachers, etc.), who devote a
substantial portion of their adult lives to training, and actually play a
cornerstone role in society, must struggle for pennies.  My response to her
was that it boils down to simple supply-and-demand economics (which doesn't
reflect actual value as much as it reflects perceived value).  In our case,
while the "supply" of taxonomists is certainly not large, the "supply" of
information is disproportionately large for the reasons you mentioned --
we're so damn eager to give it away for free.  As for "demand" --
well....the service we provide has general application to almost everyone,
but direct and specific application to only a tiny percentage of
individuals.  Even if there were ten thousand people willing to pay $25 each
for a species identification, there are tens of MILLIONS of people willing
to pay $7.50 (or whatever) to see the latest Hollywood blockbuster. Supply
and demand.

I resolve this in my own mind as follows:  I didn't get into this field to
get wealthy.  In fact, I didn't even get into this field to make a living.
I got into this field because of my passion for discovering living things.
For many years, I PAID a large portion of my total income in order to pursue
this passion.  I often still do.  It is certainly very nice when I can get
financial support that is otherwise beyond my own means, and this often
leads to safer, more productive research and exploration.  But if nobody is
willing to provide me with direct support, then I'll continue to pursue my
passion the same way I always have -- to whatever extent that I can afford
to.

I don't want to sound soap-boxy or preachy...but I see only a very few cases
where there is a morally solid foundation for regarding ANY form of
scientific information as "Proprietary".  I suppose that a case can be made
for private corporations (e.g., pharmaceutical companies) that fund their
own research for making profits....provided that the information EVENTUALLY
trickles into the public domain.  Another case can be made for research
involving weapons of mass destruction. Even in the realm of biodiversity,
exact locations of populations of very rare and valuable species probably
ought not be broadcast widely.  But in the vast majority of cases, I feel
that scientists have about as much moral justification for charging money
simply to share scientific information, as a priest does for listening to
confessions.

Does this mean that I think that scientists should work for free?  Of course
not!  If an institution or grant agency or documentary film company or
anyone else offers me money to do research or act as a consultant, I
(usually) won't hesitate to accept it! While they may THINK they are paying
me for whatever knowledge/information/insight that may be locked up in my
brain, what they are really paying me for is my TIME.  Time is my most
precious commodity, and it don't come cheap.  In fact, it's been many years
since anyone has offered me enough money to purchase my time outright.  What
they offer me instead is enough money to offset the difference in enjoyment
I get from doing whatever it is that they want me to do, versus what I would
otherwise want to be doing with that same block of time without being paid.

But, to paraphrase Stewart Brand's famous quote, any information that I have
wants to be free*. If someone shows me a photograph of a specimen, and it
takes me only a second to blurt out the correct identification...well, the
most I could charge that person and still maintain a clear conscience is
whatever my rate is for one second of my time (ain't much -- considerably
less than the smallest unit of U.S. currency).

What I find extremely encouraging is a gradual drift of institutional
mindset in this same direction. Natural history museums have a tremendous
wealth of information in their specimen collections. At great expense, this
information has been/continues to be transferred into electronic databases.
Given the huge cost of this digitization process, it is not surprising that
the trend a few years ago in many institutions was to think in terms of "How
much money can we sell this information for?"  There seems to be a gradual
shift in recent years towards thinking more in terms of "How broadly can we
freely disseminate this information?" I find this trend downright exciting,
and I hope it continues.

In any case, Doug, I guess my over-riding point here is to bolster the part
of you that felt pride, and cheer-up the part of you that felt sadness.

Aloha,
Rich

*P.S. Stewart's complete quote rarely gets included with the more famous
excerpted quip; but the full quote actually has relevance to this whole
thread:
"On the one hand information wants to be expensive, because it's so
valuable. The right information in the right place just changes your life.
On the other hand, information wants to be free, because the cost of getting
it out is getting lower and lower all the time. So you have these two
fighting against each other."  This was followed in a later published
version with, "That tension will not go away. It leads to endless wrenching
debate about price, copyright, 'intellectual property', the moral rightness
of casual distribution, because each round of new devices makes the tension
worse, not better."

P.P.S. As for the potential philanthropic support -- and again relevant to
Stewart Brand -- don't forget that the All-Species Foundation is by no means
dead (a certain Mark Twain quote comes to mind......). It does indeed still
exist (science and advisory boards are still intact, and the lists are still
active), and will be ready to spring back into large-scale action if/when
the overall philanthropic landscape becomes once again more promising for
the biodiversity documentation movement.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Taxacom Discussion List [mailto:TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG]On Behalf Of
> Doug Yanega
> Sent: Friday, January 17, 2003 9:00 AM
> To: TAXACOM at USOBI.ORG
> Subject: Ah, irony (was: Unknown fruit & other plants...)
>
>
> Maybe I'm in a funny headache-induced mood today, but when Börge wrote:
>
> >This remarkable possibility to benefit from global knowledge is
> >surely one of the strongest sides of the TAXACOM list.
>
> It struck me again with a mixture of pride and sadness that this sort
> of thing - our collective ability to recognize the living things on
> the planet, combined with our willingness, even *eagerness*, to share
> that information - is not only our great strength, but our proverbial
> Achilles' Heel.