Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Hello,

In regards to the post of those of limited resources and notable recognition trying to publish new scientific material:

In previous times, It was not necessary to be part of a privileged elite to publish new scientific discoveries. Indeed, if any question to the material presented was questionable, it would stand on it's own merit or fall in the course of time. Another simile would be our own government as originally intented. There was a center of town designated called the commons where one could express their views freely. Today, unless one is rich or famous, one is not heard. It was once said anyone could run for president. But unless one has proper noteriety or connections and has the vast financial resources available, it is a herculean task.

One of the saddest aspects of our scientific world, in addition to ego's, is blockage of scientific information to the general public. There are many private and organizational that believe knowledge should be readily accessible to all - not hidden and excluded to those charged hundreds of dollars for a La Ti Ta membership. Think of the potential talent and useful information lost due to exclusion to others who can build and expand the knowledge. It is similar to the loss of half the population (female) over the centuries due to supression (Examples, Hypatia, Virginia Galileo, Fanny Mendleson). Anyone who goes through the trouble, time, and expense of extensive research should be heard.

What is there to loose? What is there to gain?

Sincerely,
Brian L. Schnirel
LCRC

There must be some context here that I'm not aware of. I'm not sure what you're getting at. The number of people publishing in academic journals has only been increasing over the last couple hundred years, and there is no need to belong to any kind of privileged elite. A few journals or scientific meetings associated with academic societies might require you to be a member, but this isn't a terribly onerous or restrictive limitation. I joined the Willi Hennig Society by filling out an online form & paying $10. Joining the American Botanical Society was a little more money ($50? I don't remember now), but certainly nothing prohibitive.

When it comes to availability of scientific journals--this can be something of a problem. Journals are often too expensive for it to be feasible for private citizens to reasonably get good representation of a field. However, that's not much different for those in academia than those outside it, really. I have access to scientific journals because I go to my university & access them electronically or through the paper collections, and any other resident of the state can do the same.

Hello and thanks for writing.

Aspidoscelis wrote:

There must be some context here that I'm not aware of. I'm not sure what you're getting at. The number of people publishing in academic journals has only been increasing over the last couple hundred years, and there is no need to belong to any kind of privileged elite. A few journals or scientific meetings associated with academic societies might require you to be a member, but this isn't a terribly onerous or restrictive limitation. I joined the Willi Hennig Society by filling out an online form & paying $10. Joining the American Botanical Society was a little more money ($50? I don't remember now), but certainly nothing prohibitive.

When it comes to availability of scientific journals--this can be something of a problem. Journals are often too expensive for it to be feasible for private citizens to reasonably get good representation of a field. However, that's not much different for those in academia than those outside it, really. I have access to scientific journals because I go to my university & access them electronically or through the paper collections, and any other resident of the state can do the same.

This was in response to a post that has seemed to have disappeared.

Yes, acceptance by societies of individuals of various walks of life is practiced - especially if there are memberships fee to be collected. My apologies if my post seemed to lead overwise.

It is often a case where one of lesser notoriety or connections to a major university finds it a major challenge to publish or describe new species. This was what the original writer was mainly writing about that the post in question was responding to by me.

And yes, it is most sad that free access to knowledge has it's limitations. It is often a road block to scientific progress.
It is not to say it is impossible, but often very difficult or impossible given distances and budgets involved to go to a particular location of research.

Thanks again for writing,
Pilirin

As someone in the private sector with peer reviewed published work, I will tell you that unless the Scientific community in big numbers does not call out Rodda and Reed on the USGS paper on Pythons in the Everglades, NO ONE in the private sector will ever think of Scientest as honest. Vic Morgan owner Defying Destiny Manouria reserve. St.Aug.Fl.

Typos corrected... my apologies
Posted by: Pilirin at Mon Jun 4 12:18:06 2007
Hello,

In regards to the post of those of limited resources and notable recognition trying to publish new scientific material:

In previous times, It was not necessary to be part of a privileged elite to publish new scientific discoveries. Indeed, if any question to the material presented was questionable, it would stand on it's own merit or fall in the course of time. Another simile would be our own government as originally intented. There was a center of town designated called the commons where one could express their views freely. Today, unless one is rich or famous, one is not heard. It was once said anyone could run for president. But unless one has proper noteriety or connections and has the vast financial resources available, it is a Herculean task.

One of the saddest aspects of our scientific world, in addition to ego's, is blockage of scientific information to the general public. There are many private and organizational that believe knowledge should be readily accessible to all - not hidden and excluded to those charged hundreds of dollars for a La Ti Ta membership. Think of the potential talent and useful information lost due to exclusion to others who can build and expand the knowledge. It is similar to the loss of half the population (female) over the centuries due to suppression (Examples, Hypatia, Virginia Galileo, Fanny Mendleson). Anyone who goes through the trouble, time, and expense of extensive research should be heard.

What is there to lose? What is there to gain?

Sincerely,
Brian L. Schnirel
LCRC