I understand the controversy regarding dissemination of plant locality
information. But I don't understand the implied conflict between
scientific and conservation interests. In other posts, advocates of the
mapping project stated that this map would aid conservation activity.
I have noticed that botanists make up the bulk of the Michigan Nature
Conservancy advisory board. Botanists actively manage much of the CPC
(Center for Plant Conservation) project headed by the Missouri Botanical
Garden. Botanists advise the Arizona Department of Agriculture regarding
the status of federally and state listed plants. In the USA at least,
scientists and conservationists are working together. Also, this map
I assume, will plot the distribution of wild plants in their natural
habitats. The usefulness and significance of this map is greatly
enhanced if these plants remain there! :-)
As for the purity of science and the scientific method... I think science
is a product of civilization, and can't be isolated from discretionary
and ethical concerns. It starts at the very beginning, when a scientist
uses discretion to choose a project, and funding agencies use
their discretion in support. Botany may not be as rife with ethical
quandaries as the medical or military sciences, but ethics are still
there. I would hope that all scientists at least give thought and
concern to ethics, even though they cannot always predict the
repercussions of thier findings.
Michael Chamberland