Illegal millipede begs the neat question: should magazines have refused to publish an article about it? | Science

According to Yao-Hua Law10 February 2021, 12:20 pm

In 2018, a new species of millipede will appear on the pages of the prominent taxonomy journal Zootaxa. More than 14 centimeters long, with striking teal-colored legs, it lives in the mountainous and moss-like forests of the Philippines. Now, however, the millipede is in a harsh spotlight. According to the Philippine government, the Spanish neurologist and amateur biologist describing the species obtained his samples illegally.

Neither the editors of the magazine nor its peer reviewers have expired – and the magazine has no policy that requires documentation to be collected with the correct permits. Some editors tell Science it must change. Others are concerned about the obstruction of research as undescribed species are rapidly disappearing. And everyone agrees that magazines struggle to enforce such rules, given the huge difference in the legal requirements of countries. “There is simply no way to police a journal,” said Maarten Christenhusz, an independent botanist and editor-in-chief of the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society.

Carles Doménech of the University of Alicante in Spain contacted Filipino collectors after seeing images of the millipede online. One, Michael Andrew Cipat, caught wild millipedes and sold them – dead and alive – to Doménech in 2016 and 2017. Cipat tell Science he collected permits and that a friend with export permits sent the copies. But the Philippine Department of Environment and Natural Resources says it is illegal to sell samples to a foreign researcher who has not signed an agreement with DENR. “The Philippine government does not tolerate such illegal acts,” a representative wrote. Science. The collectors could be jailed or fined under a Philippine wildlife protection law.

Doménech says he did not know he needed permits to run the millipede, calling him a ‘beginner’ who works largely alone. After presenting his paper in which he describes the new species, which he mentioned Scolopendra paradox, neither Zootaxa none of the five judges of his manuscript asked about permits, he says. ‘Now I know it [was] a mistake, ‘he wrote in an email. “Now I take my copies and let no one do them for me without the corresponding legal permits.”

Zhi-Qiang Zhang, Editor-in-Chief of Zootaxa, who studies myths at Landcare Research in New Zealand, says that although the journal does not set permit requirements, individual editors may reject manuscripts that do not have a license. He says the magazine’s editors had previously discussed whether it should instruct authors to follow the permit requirements and could not agree. “Most editors have had negative opinions about ‘permits’ or ‘legal requirements’ for samples,” says Zhang, noting that such regulations hinder research and biodiversity conservation.

One reviewer of Doménech’s manuscript, Carlos Martínez, a millipede taxonomist at the University of Turku’s Zoology Museum, says he was ‘really crazy’ about learning about the origin of the millipede samples. “As judges, we have the right to know if the samples were obtained illegally,” he says. “We have the right to refuse to revise the paper.” Martínez says he interviewed four of the five Filipino collectors mentioned in the newspaper and confirmed that the samples were illegal. But he says judges can not be expected to regularly check the legality of samples. “Our judges are not supposed to be the police.”

Illegal samples in research have been occasionally exposed, but magazine editors disagree on the extent of the problem. One editor described it as ‘insignificant’; another said it was “impossible to know.” They are also not even about what they should do about it. Louis Deharveng, Deputy Editor-in-Chief of Zoo Keys and an emeritus arthropod researcher at the National Museum of Natural History in Paris, says an editorial policy on permits ‘is essential’.

But among five respected taxonomy journals, two – the Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society and Zootaxa– Do not instruct authors to obey the legislation on the collection of samples. (Science will soon add such compliance with legal requirements to its editorial policy.)

Shaun Winterton, Editor-in-Chief of Systematic entomology and an entomologist at the California Department of Food and Agriculture, his magazine tells writers to follow the law, but adds: ‘If we as editors suspected material was being collected illegally, it could be difficult for us to to confirm. ‘ (He notes that he is speaking on behalf of the journal, not his employer.) The complex and varying legal conditions that countries impose on research are one obstacle.

A further complication is the International Nagoya Protocol, which aims to ensure a “fair and equitable distribution of benefits due to the utilization of genetic resources”. The agreement may apply to the importation of some specimens, but whether it applies to taxonomy samples is unclear. The Nagoya Protocol enables each signatory country to define the use of genetic resources; Spain says EU legislation implementing the Nagoya Protocol does not apply to taxonomic studies such as those of Doménech.

Gonzalo Giribet, Editor-in-Chief of Invertebrate systematics and a zoologist at Harvard University, adds that judges also cannot accept responsibility. “They do it altruistically,” he says, making him want to add legal issues to their review burden. “Journals must have clear statements about the origin of the biological materials and ethics, and the ultimate responsibility [for legality] must lie with the authors. ”

Clear information on legal requirements will help judges, editors and researchers, says Caroline Fukushima, an arachnologist at the Finnish Museum of Natural History. In June 2020, in Conservation biology, she and colleagues recommended creating a platform for legal requirements of countries for natural research. “We are dealing with habitat destruction, so we need to make life easier and faster for scientists,” she says.