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

[Heike Vibrans]

The matter of payment for taxonomic services comes up
around here sometimes, too, but I think Doug is mistaken.
And as American ideas, bad and good, tend to percolate to
other regions of the world, let me go into details.

First and foremost, as Tom Lammers has pointed out, most
of us are public employees. As such, we make a tradeoff -
we make less money, but we also don't have to worry about
our paycheck coming in every month (well, unless the state
goes broke, not an impossible scenario down here). This
applies, by the way, not only to taxonomists, but to all
other publicly employed scientists (and doctors!).
Astronomers generally don't charge to point out stars to
you. As a matter of fact, they like to do that. Just like
I like to point out plants to people. And, as I said, that
is what I am being paid for; a private enterprise charges
every service individually; I charge collectively through
my salary. Personally, I prefer it that way.

Second, I find it hard to believe that in the United
States it is really impossible to get legal or medical
advice (as opposed to treatment or formal representation)
for free. In the two societies that I am reasonable
familiar with, one European and the other Latin American,

everybody gets advice first from their friends and
relatives (and their friends and relatives ...), before
deciding to pay for the "real" work. In the same way, I
dispense botanical advice.

Third, in many countries medical and even legal advice are
free or at only nominal cost for the consumer - society
pays for the services in a communal manner, either
outright through taxes or through obligatory health
insurance (and, I might add, in many places resulting in
lower GNP percentage of cost, and healthier populations
than in the US, even though you sometimes have to wait for
the service and the surroundings may not be quite as
glamorous). Publicly employed doctors tend to gripe about
their pay, just as scientists do (particularly as they
tend to compare it to their US counterparts), but they are
almost always reasonably well-off within their societies.
And people do not regard medical (and other) advice as
propietary, but as a right. So Dougs comparison only
applies to certain societies.

Fourth, many of our "consumers" are plainly unable to pay.
Quite a few of the people who come to consult me on weeds
(which is what I know) are students who are barely
surviving on a state grant, and would be hardpressed to
pay even 50 cents per specimen. The other people who ask
me are generally collegues, which are almost always
friends (given the small size of the academic circles
around here) and it would be quite impossible to charge
(same with the people they bring along as friends). Not
that I would want to.

An analogous example: I get asked quite frequently to
translate taxonomic texts from German into Spanish. Now
there is no way my collegues could pay me enough to make
it worth my time (particularly as translation is boring).
If I ask for less than my time is worth, they will feel
they have a right to ask for service within a certain time
and in a certain form. So what I do, I tell them I will do
it when I have time for it, as a favor, and in the form I
choose, and they will owe me one ... And I ask for it, too
... their time or expertise or publications or whatever.

Fifth - I like to look at specimens and learn something
new. Also, sometimes I find something interesting that may
be useful for a publication, and that converts itself,
indirectly, into pay. And, my home collection grows.

Sixth - making science - knowledge - proprietary is an
extremely bad idea. The strength of science is in the free
interchange of information, particularly in the public
critical review of methods, results and conclusions.
Making information propietary is necesary in certain areas
in modern societies, but these should be very limited.

Seventh - and here I agree with what Doug and Richard said
- taxonomy does have a public relations problem. Perhaps
this derives from the kind of people that like to drift
into taxonomy - individualists, mostly, not flamboyant
personalities. If a taxonomist is able to transmit his or
her interests into the public arena, he or she can get
quite a bit done - see the example of Peter Raven.  And I
agree a lobbying organization would be a good idea (but
then - what are the professional societies for???). Also,
I find it wildly unfair that the literature that I use
most - floras and taxonomic monographies - are not usually
cited in the works derived from using this literature.
Perhaps it would be a good idea to convince journal
editors to ask authors to cite the taxonomic literature
they used and to make it more visible in that way.

Finally: conservation organization money often pays for
taxonomic and inventory work, as far as I know, does it
not? And: ALL scientists, not only taxonomists, dream of
having working money without having to waste so much time
writing grant proposals ... Perhaps, one of these days,
someone does a serious economic analysis of this matter
and concludes that it is more efficient to give everybody
a budget, perhaps based on performance ....

All the best,

Heike

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Dra. Heike Vibrans L.
Laboratorio de Etnobotánica
Especialidad de Botánica
Colegio de Postgraduados en Ciencias Agrícolas
km 35.5 carr. México-Texcoco
53230 Montecillo
Estado de México, Mexico

Tel. +52 (595) 95 20 200 Ext. 1335 (directo), 1331
(secretaria), 1330 (dirección)
Fax. +52 (595) 95 20 247
Correo electrónico: heike at colpos.colpos.mx (trabajo)
heikev at prodigy.net.mx (casa)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------