[Zoobank-list] Code fear

[Richard Pyle]

Doug wrote:

> [I'll interject here: that depends on which taxon you work on - there
> are several insect families whose taxonomy HAS been thrown into utter
> chaos in the last 30 years by unethical/incompetent professional
> taxonomists who found ways to bypass peer review. Some are still
> publishing today. We're talking about the kinds of disasters that
> will take *decades* to clean up. This is NOT a hypothetical danger.]

To which I respond:  O.K., fair enough.  All of our views on these topics
are colored by our respective personal experiences, which seldom involve the
entire zoological spectrum.

> However, I also feel absolutely that we cannot
> streamline and facilitate the process of taxon description without
> simultaneously ensuring that the system CANNOT be abused.

I would argue that we can *never* absolutely ensure that the system "CANNOT"
be abused.  What we need to do is find the optimal technological/procedural
paradigm that offers the best ratio of benefits (however those are defined)
to costs.  The approach you advocate certainly favors enforcement of
scientific integrity of newly proposed names, but even you have to agree
that there are likely to be substantial costs (measured in terms of money,
time, logistics, and sociology) associated with it. Each of the other
proposed scenarios comes with its own set of costs and benefits.  "We"
(meaning the "choir" who have been self-preaching this stuff for years)
could argue with each other until the cows come home, but we're not going to
be able to adequately asses the real cost/benefit ratios of each scenario
for taxonomy as a whole.  That can only come from a VERY broad discussion,
involving a MUCH larger spectrum of practicing taxonomists.  And, as I have
said before, I do not think that broad discussion is ready to start yet,
because we have not provided an adequate set of information resources (e.g.,
working protoype, direct comparison of alternate proposals, etc.) to help
inform the vast majority of taxonomist who have NOT spent years thinking
about the implications of universal registration.

> I do, in
> fact, believe the primary thing holding the floodgates closed is the
> perception that there is something mystical and arcane and
> super-secret-scientific about giving a new taxon a name.

To the extent this may be true, I think it is very unfortunate.

> We cannot
> open that floodgate without first putting some sort of safeguard into
> place, which is why I believe open peer review needs to be integral
> to the process.

I agree that safeguards need to be integral to the system, and I agree that
"judgement of peers" is among the better weapons of choice.  But I am not
convinced that mandatory full-blown subjective scientific review of every
newly-published name, and the associated need to even more fundamentally
entangle the objective legalities of nomenclatural availability with the
subjective science of taxonomy, represents the optimal cost/benefit ratio in
the long-run.  Rather, I think that objective rules of nomenclature (which
can be applied by a computer algorithm), coupled with an "audit trail" of
whose new names serve the scientific community and whose tend not to,
represents a better long-term solution.

> When I (and probably you) first joined the Internet, there was almost
> no spam; Nigerian Scams, phony bank notices, identity theft engines,
> and all that other crap COULD have been there from day one, but it
> wasn't.

True, but I would argue that it could not have been prevented from day one
either -- at least not without substantial costs.  For example, one solution
to avoid these things would be to have incorporated a mandatory peer-review
process for every electronic document sent via the internet (email, web
pages, files, etc.). Such a review process would have virtually eliminated
spam, scams, identity theft, etc.  But do you REALLY think that would have
been a wise thing to implement at the dawn of the internet?  A "moderated
web"?  Do you think that the internet would have thrived as well as it has
if such a mandatory peer-review system was incorported?  Would the benefits
have exceded the costs?

Hey -- you introduced the analogy -- I just ran with it!

Actually, I think the analogy is a good one, and works on several levels.
For example, you are right -- I got very few spam/trash email in the early
days when I got my first CompuServe account.  Even during the first few
years of the (public) internet and email, I got hardly any spam at all.  It
gradually ramped up over the years, to the point where more than 50% of the
email in my inbox was spam.  I almost gave up on email altogether.  But then
during the past year or so, the rate of spam reaching my inbox has steadily
declined.  Now I get far less than 10% spam, and the trend is decreasing. In
other words, the problem is correcting itself (through more intelligent
filters, etc.). I bet that in less than 20 years, spam will be looked back
on in the same way that we now look back on (literal) snake-oil salesmen.

I concede that there is a risk (of debatable size) that, during the years
immediately following mandatory registration (following Scenario 2), there
could be a "spike" of new name registries that ultimately end up in the
synonym scrap heap.  But I feel that in the longer context of history, this
spike will be relatively short-lived as the optimum balance of "filtering"
protocols is implemented into the registration system. I have many, many
ideas about how such "filters" could be implemented into a
registered=available system, which I hope to articulate on a web page when I
have some time. But it would rely more on objective comupter algorithms
(requiring very little human intervention, and thus very little
expenditure), than subjective peer-review of the sort you advocate (which
would require a HUGE investment of human intervention, which may or may not
be simply "stolen" from the existing peer-review obligations that scientists
already comply with).

> Add just ONE person, just
> *one*, who realizes that they can get 1000 dollars a month in extra
> income just by ordering cheap foreign butterflies or beetles from a
> dealer at 1 dollar each, and auctioning them off for 100 to ignorant
> rubes on eBay (I've seen people pay 80 dollars for a Luna Moth on
> eBay, which costs 1 dollar in an insect catalogue), and we *will* see
> the floodgates open.

Maybe.  But I suggest that it requires more than "just one" person hoping to
make a buck.  It also requires substantial numbers of people willing to part
with that buck.  And besides, I can imagine computer algorithms that can
objectively spot patterns of registry consistent with malfeasance, and
respond with automated warnings and/or revocation of registration privledges
for the offending individual.  You mentioned eBay -- it has an unbelievably
simple, but REMARKABLY effective system for rating buyers and sellers, such
that every transaction that occurs on eBay does not need to be individually
peer-reviewed.  I can imagine an analagous system for ZooBank, such that
when an algorithm spots a potential fraudulent scientist, it is brought to
the attention of a peer-review board.  That way, the peer review would focus
only on suspected fraud taxonomists -- a much smaller task that mandatory
peer-review of every single name (the vast majority of which would be
legitimate).

> Basically, if we
> let frauds start to auction off bogus names, then we'll lose the
> ability to auction off real ones

In order for this to be true, it means that the potential buyers of names
would have to feel "burned" in some way by the scammers.  That would only
happen if the buyers found out that the names thay paid for were bogus
(defined as immediately sunk by other taxonmists).  Thus for the scammers to
ruin it for the rest of us, there would need to be conscious feedback to the
buyers -- which would then self-regulate the scammers.

Besides, I think there are far easier ways to mitigate this problem, which I
will try to illustrate when I get my thoughts organized on all of this
stuff.

> There *is* a financial incentive aspect to naming taxa, and I think
> it would be very foolish to ignore that for much longer.

I agree.  I just am not convinced that your proposed solution is the only
solution -- or even the best solution.

> Giving
> people a quick way to name taxa without requiring that they be NEW
> taxa would be a big mistake. The only way to ensure that they're NEW
> taxa is to have open review - so, for example, the instant Joe Fraud
> submits a new butterfly name for approval, every butterfly taxonomist
> in the world gets an automated message alerting them that a new
> butterfly is being proposed, and within hours it can be confirmed
> that the proposed taxon already has a name.

How is this not equally available in Scenario 2?

> The proposal is rejected,
> no appeal, and Joe Fraud is out in the cold.

He's only out in the cold if the buyers actually know about the registration
web site.  If they do know, then they would see the "IMPORTANT NOTE" located
somewhere near the top of the registration home page warning potential
buyers of new names to investigate the scientific track record of the
scientist they are buying the name from.  The "value" of a name might then
become more tied to the credientials of the naming taxonomist, than to the
name per-se, thereby simultaneously thwarting scammers and rewarding
highly-regarded taxonomists in one stroke.

> Under models 1 and 2, he
> could describe and self-publish 500 taxa a week, and there would be
> nothing anyone could do except synonymize them after the fact

I gather you haven't been reading my earlier descriptions of Scenario 2
carefully -- further proof that we do not yet fully understand each other's
vision, and therefore are CERTAINLY not ready to present those visions to
the broader taxonomic community.

Aloha,
Rich