Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I really lose track of why varanid researchers, want to part ways with varanid breeders. I find this concept odd.

I have to wonder, and you know I do. Isn't most science and ologies, directed towards mans usage? And doesn't mans usage equate to money or commerial. i.e. foods, medicines, usable materials (hides and such)

I have to think, most biologists studying animals are directed towards mans usage and comsumption. Am I wrong?

So why do reptile guys like zoo fellas and academics have to be so different or say or think, they are so different. Like they are allergic to money or something???? remember, herpetology is the study of reptiles, there is no concern if money is envolved. If fact, there would be more of it, if there was indeed, money envolved. i bet if reptiles had a REAL commerial value, there would be tons and tons of studies. FR

They are looking at varanids re: cancer studies as they get cancer just like we do. They are looking at Heloderma venom as a possible antibiotic as most of the 7 regularly used types used now are beginning to achieve resistance from bacteriums. They are also looing at sharks as they are long lived, do not appear to get disease, and are fast growing.

Yes, we do use some animals as people figure out new ideas/pathways to better mankind, but herpetology is not always interested in such monetary gains as those afore-mentioned. Furthermore, not all 'sciences' are for the betterment of Mankind; some people thought Ethology would show man and animals different, and it does not; we have reptile brains and the higher function mammalian brains in there too - we act the same when high density populations occur, aka prison as do rats and reptiles do = higher incidence of violence, murder, mayhem occur, but that is not financially practical for anyone I don't think.

Knowledge for knowledge's sake is what guides alot of 'scientisits' through their investigations, which they follow using the scientific method, a testable, reproduceable scenario where anyone can repeat it, test it, until something else comes along to change the model = that is how science works. An innate curiosity drives alot of scientists, and after all, "Science" does mean 'knowledge' right!

You say varanids multi-clutch in captivity = fine. You say they do in nature but cannot prove it = ok. Others say they have never seen them do this in the wild = ok...aren't you both in agreement on this then? Two ends of the same stick meet in the middle, and both say they have never seen multiclutching in the wild.

cheers,
mbayless

The point that FR was trying to make is that MS told him that varanids don't multiclutch. MS based his assertion on the fact that he had personally never seen it happen in the wild.

How on earth can someone who claims to be a scientist prove a negative based on the notion that "it can't be true because he has never seen it".

Tell me again, who is using the scientific method and who is just blowing hot air?

Many academics (not all) and many more zoo fellas (not all) are scared of the competition in the real world.

"Those that can't do, teach and those that can't teach, teach teachers"

Many of the best herper/zoo fellas that I knew in the 80's are now professional breeders. They quickly realized that the zoo world had very little opportunity for advancement, yet the world of herpetoculture was only limited by how smart and how hard you worked.

Today, it is so politically incorrect to think of animals in terms of dollars. How crass, the idea of a puppy mill to produce reptiles for the pet industry. My god, most of these animals will be treated poorly and then, all of them will die. These same people who decry keeping reptiles in a cage seem to have no problem with trout being produced for food. I can only assume that this sort of nonsense is force fed kids in colleges and universities by people who cannot compete in the real world of dollars and profit.

Fear of money and profit is directly related to a fear of failure. Many academics purposely structure their lives in a way that makes failure impossible. There are almost no gauges that measure the productivity of the average academic or zoo fella. They can write papers and claim to have made important scientific discoveries, but who will call them on their "facts" when they are blatantly wrong? Their superiors and most of their peers will have no idea that they are wrong, their students are not going to call them on the facts, only the private sector will know what the truth is and they will only discover the truth after they have tested the "facts" in real life.

hunu, you seem like a "how did our oil get under their sand?" kinda guy to me, praising greed and all that. I bet honesty matters to you as well. It's OK if you don't like academics or herpetology as a scientific field, good in fact, because it appears to be something you are not suited for anyway.

But this is a forum principally about monitors, and I am starting to wonder if you have anything to contribute beyond a puerile attitude? Why don't you compose something that would inform (or even entertain) us? You have claimed some experience with wild monitors, let's hear about that please.

One of the surest signs that someone has nothing defensible to say is the practice of hiding behind an alias.

I've been enjoying this conversation from the sidelines. I want to now address a couple points you simply seem unaware of.

1. You state "Many academics (not all) and many more zoo fellas (not all) are scared of the competition in the real world."

Ok, as far as academics is concerned, for any research to happen funding is needed. There is very limited funding available-for ANY research. I ask you to consider just how competitive grant writing is. The competition for those research dollars is extraordinary. If a particular acedemic is unable to secure those dollars, well let's just say the university administrators are VERY displeased.

2. You also state "force fed kids in colleges and universities by people who cannot compete in the real world of dollars and profit."

Did you go to college? I myself CHOSE to go. I CHOSE which school to go to, I CHOSE which classes to take, and I CHOSE which prof. I wanted to teach me each class. Nobody force fed me anything. Any university that "force feeds" it's "kids" (who are actually thinking adults) anything would suffer low enrollment. Most respectable universities are all about the free flow of ideas. If you're not happy with a certain institutions philosophy, you are free to take your business elsewhere. And as far as the part of your comment about dollars and profit, refer to my response to #1.

3. Finally this nonsense is vomitted from your brain:
"Fear of money and profit is directly related to a fear of failure. Many academics purposely structure their lives in a way that makes failure impossible. There are almost no gauges that measure the productivity of the average academic or zoo fella. They can write papers and claim to have made important scientific discoveries, but who will call them on their "facts" when they are blatantly wrong? Their superiors and most of their peers will have no idea that they are wrong, their students are not going to call them on the facts, only the private sector will know what the truth is and they will only discover the truth after they have tested the "facts" in real life."

Almost no gauges? There are gauges everywhere. First you have to sell your idea to the university administators. If they think your subject is worthwhile they will allow you to write for a grant. Do you know what happens to academics who are unable to secure grants? So then you're allowed to apply for a grant, again, very competitive. Do you know how much your research proposal is scrutinized by those who give out grants? And you haven't even performed it yet!
Now lets just say you get this far, you secure a grant, the college gets its money, and you get a paycheck. Let's even say you have research finding you think are pretty impressive. Is that the end? Do you honestly believe "They can write papers and claim to have made important scientific discoveries, but who will call them on their "facts" when they are blatantly wrong? Their superiors and most of their peers will have no idea that they are wrong, their students are not going to call them on the facts"?
NO NO NO NO NO NO! Do you know how difficult, how competitive it is to get published in a peer reviewed scientific journal? The top people in the world sit on a board and scrutinize each submission. Every aspect is questioned. Every "fact" is examined. I believe its something like 85% of all submitions to peer reviewed journals are rejected on the first submission. This topic also speaks to the point of motivation, of it being money or not. In the academic community there is something more valuable than money: presige and reputation. To even get published is an accomplishment worthy of repect. Heck, eeven to secure a grant is.
What I personally dislike more than anything is contempt prior to investigation. I ask you to consider the process as a whole before puking such stupidity as you above posted. I have know doubt that if you truly knew what is involved you would not make such statements "fear of competition", and no gauges.
Paul Kemes

Hi Paul,

I liked your post. Very good. I have written a few articles/papers/academic levels and layperson alike, and have been told of 15 mistakes on some 3,000 localities listed on my paper on the Biogeography of African Varanids papers (J. of Biogeography, 2002, 29:1643-1701). I welcomed those comments as it enlightened me to some other errors, which are being corrected in a forth-coming article on the same with an additional 2500 more localities for these animals, and some very interesting 'lost' information on them as well. I will of course send it to the same people who informed me on my previous errors, and hopefully less errors will result. Science as you know allows for corrections, especially if they move the 'knowledge' forward, not backward (and even the old saying, 'back to blackboard' theme is a good thing as it allows one to revise, review and rethink old ideas in new ways...).

I have been told I was dead wrong on other articles as well, but to date, nobody has been able to refute what I have written about that varanid, so it remains until further proof proves otherwise.
Cheers,
mark bayless

"I really lose track of why varanid researchers, want to part ways with varanid breeders. I find this concept odd."

What makes you say that they want to part ways? Saying that herpetoculture is not a subset of herpetology, but that people can be both herpetologist and herpetoculturist isn't to say they are trying to part ways.

"I have to wonder, and you know I do. Isn't most science and ologies, directed towards mans usage?...I have to think, most biologists studying animals are directed towards mans usage and comsumption. Am I wrong?"

Yes, you are wrong. Most biologists I know would love to study things for the sake of gaining knowledge, but are often limited by funding. There is always going to be more funding for commercially directed studies because the taxpayers insist on it. Do you think varanid researchers study them for usage and consumption? No, this is a study for the gaining of knowledge, but for every grant given to someone studying reptiles there are thousands of grants for things taxpayers find more useful to them. Part of the reason I came to Australia to research reptiles was because the place I came from had funding for studies on animals people hunt (ducks n' deer), as these studies make the taxpayers happy, there was little to no funding for studies on the local reptiles.

"i bet if reptiles had a REAL commerial value, there would be tons and tons of studies."

This much is true, for the reasons I stated above: more commercial potential = more grants. However, given the choice of studying an animal's habits in nature or working out better ways to breed more of them in captivity, most herpetologists I know would choose the former.