[Nhcoll-l] VEROs

[Samuel Bolton]

Dear Doug, you raise some interesting points. I must admit I disagree with
some of them.

*Doug Yanega: an increasing proportion of newly discovered and described
taxa are morphologically cryptic…Much of taxonomy is moving away from
species delimitation based on externally visible characters, so the
underlying premise is itself diminishing in relevance.*

I see your point about cryptic species, but if someone from Brazil can show
a species that they have is clearly different from the nearest holotype in,
say, North America, then there is no reason to worry about having to borrow
the specimen. They might have cryptic species, but the issue of the
holotype is no longer a major impediment to knowing if something is new or
not. In this respect, 3D models are going to be useful.

Moreover, it is not possible to readily obtain DNA from a lot of holotypes
of extant species. This is a problem in my field because most of the
holotypes are slide mounted mites, from which it is currently impossible to
recover DNA. And if there are species that have been described based on
only molecular data, that data will also be publicly available. But many
people still describe species based on morphology alone, even for extant
lineages. The point is that there should not be a mutually exclusive
approach to the delimitation of species based on only one type of data.
Morphology and molecular data actually complement each other.

I also feel a little skeptical about cryptic species. I don’t deny them,
but if there are no phenotypic differences that can be used to show that
two geographically separate lineages are not reproductively isolated or
have not diverged in terms of ecological niche, how meaningful are
molecular differences (Freudenstein et al. 2017)? But perhaps most
importantly of all, advances in molecular sequencing have dominated the
conversation about species delimitation precisely because we don’t have
good funding mechanisms for sharing morphological data. We may switch back
to a more phenotypic perspective of how to delimit species once we have
better morphological data to complement molecular data.

*Doug Yanega: Producing 3D images is not cheap or simple… *

Hence, we need a funding mechanism. Indeed, the paper is predicated on the
technology being expensive, but not so expensive that the problem is
definitely not possible to solve with VEROs. If you look at some of the
NFTs that sell for millions of dollars, holotype VEROs seem like a bargain
if they sell for 10, 000 dollars.

*…nor is it guaranteed to produce images useful to an expert, EVEN IF
external morphology is a viable diagnostic feature.*

I must disagree. There is plenty of versatility in the way we can generate
good quality 3D models. Admittedly, a lot of 3D modelling has involved
substandard photogrammetry because more expensive tools such as confocal
and CT are not affordable. But that’s where VEROs come in handy as a
funding mechanism we hope.

*Doug Yanega: *For example, almost any group of organisms that is
traditionally stored in liquid or on microscope slides is pretty certainly
going to be unsuitable for application of 3D imaging

I must completely disagree with this, especially for freshly collected
specimens. High quality 3D models can be generated from slide mounted
specimens. Confocal microscopy is a good tool for this. Admittedly, for
older specimens it is trickier but certainly not impossible. And I feel
confident that advances will be made in this field. I am not sure why you
think that specimens stored in liquid cannot be used to generate 3D models.

*Doug Yanega: I won't deny that I have often longed for nice 3D images of
insects, but I've come to recognize that such images will probably NEVER be
a major tool for the practice of taxonomy.*

I don’t buy this argument. Advances in confocal z-stacking, photogrammetry,
micro-CT, etc. mean that high resolution models of insects can now be
generated. I admit that for insects, photogrammetry is not always ideal,
but advances are definitely occurring in this field. I spend a considerable
proportion of my time looking at confocal 3D models precisely because 2D
(based on DIC or phase contrast) images just do not cut it.

*Doug Yanega: Right now, with few exceptions, one institution can just put
a box of specimens in the mail to another institution, nearly anywhere in
the world, for little more than the cost of postage, and no one bats an
eye, including our administrators, even if it involves thousands of
specimens or potentially new species.*

But this is based on the understanding that specimens need to be moved
around, which is potentially risky when dealing with type specimens. It
seems better to produce 3D models and share them online.

Thanks very much for adding your input to this discussion, Doug.

Best,

Sam



Reference:

Freudenstein, J.V., Broe, M.B., Folk, R.A. & Sinn, B.T. 2017. Biodiversity
and the species concept­–Lineages are not enough. Systematic Biology, 66,
644–656.

On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 12:45 PM Catherine Early (she/her) <cearly at smm.org>
wrote:

> Hi Sam,
>
> Thanks very much for clarifying. I had interpreted it that way because
> that unfortunately is the way a lot of biodiversity research has gone. I'm
> very glad to see that was not your intent and that you are in fact hoping
> that VEROs could help balance out extractive and colonialist scientific
> practices. And it's clear that we agree on another important point:
> high-quality 3D digitization of holotypes and other rare specimens needs to
> be happening at a much faster rate than it currently is.
>
> I'm not sure if VEROs of fossils would ever be more valuable than the
> fossils themselves, even if you include the devaluation that storage and
> handling costs may add to fossils. Will celebrities who like decorating
> their homes with dinosaurs be satisfied with the rights to a digital model?
> If not, museums will continue to be outbid for those specimens. But I like
> your hopeful thinking and can understand the logic behind it.
>
> Thanks for the discussion!
>
> Best,
> Catherine
>
> <https://www.smm.org/>
>
> *Catherine M. Early, PhD*
>
> she/her
>
> *Barbara Brown Chair of Ornithology*
>
> e: cearly at smm.org
>
> https://catherineearly.wixsite.com/home
>
> We envision a world where everyone has the power to use science to make
> lives better,
> and we are committed to using STEM as a tool to advocate for justice and
> equity.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 11:21 AM Samuel Bolton <
> samuel.bolton77 at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Dear Catherine,
>>
>> My last point from my previous response was misinterpreted. I said that
>> an expert anywhere in the world would be able to describe a 3D model once
>> it is online, not only an expert from a wealthy country. In my field,
>> entomology, there are estimated to be millions of undescribed species but
>> there are not nearly enough experts within any single megadiverse country
>> to describe them all. And in my particular field, acarology, a high
>> proportion of the experts now live in Brazil and Iran (far more than in the
>> USA). Given that many genera and families are globally distributed, how
>> does an expert in Iran go about describing species from, say, Madagascar,
>> when permits to collect in Madagascar are so hard to get?
>>
>> And by putting more 3D models of holotypes online from developed
>> countries, the specialists in megadiverse countries will be able to compare
>> their undescribed species with those holotypes. NFTs therefore could solve
>> a major impediment in taxonomy for megadiverse countries, which is a lack
>> of access to the vast majority of holotypes, many of which have been
>> effectively poached from megadiverse countries by the most developed
>> countries. I get more requests from Brazil to see my specimens than the
>> whole of the developed world. It would be nice if I could provide them with
>> a high-quality 3D model because loaning holotypes is a risky business.
>>
>> And if taxonomists attempt to be generalists that only describe fauna
>> from their own country, this can and does result in a giant taxonomic mess,
>> with the result being many unnecessary synonyms. It is better to allow
>> experts anywhere in the world, including in undeveloped countries, to
>> spread their geographical wings while also remaining as specialized as
>> possible. VEROs provide a possible funding mechanism for this. I don’t see
>> governments or donations providing the funding for this within a timeframe
>> that is needed (although I don’t claim that VEROs definitely can provide
>> the solution to this funding crisis either). We are witnessing a mass
>> extinction and we need a way to know what is out there before much of it
>> disappears. I hold out hope that the worst of climate change can be
>> mitigated, but deforestation is rampant right now, and so we urgently need
>> to find a way to fund the collection of specimens to generate 3D models or
>> good quality 2D images so that we know what we are about to lose before we
>> lose it.
>>
>> As far as fossils go, do VEROs not provide a possible solution to the
>> monetization problem that you already possess, which is keeping specimens
>> out of public collections so that neither academics nor the public can view
>> them? Why would a private collector not seek to generate VEROs from their
>> collection, assuming they can meet the requirements of the smart contract?
>> And if they can’t meet the requirements, the VERO might be more valuable
>> than the actual specimen because there are no storage or handling costs.
>> Therefore, the collector might be tempted to donate the actual specimen to
>> a public museum in exchange for the VERO.
>>
>> I don’t pretend VEROs provide answers to all our problems. And I am very
>> glad we are having this discussion. This is precisely why we wrote the
>> paper. Catherine, your input is greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>>
>> Sam
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 13, 2021 at 11:24 AM Catherine Early (she/her) <
>> cearly at smm.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Sam,
>>>
>>> I'm still unsettled by moves to monetize specimens, even 3D models of
>>> them, but I appreciate you taking the time to address my concerns so
>>> thoroughly. It could be because I come from a vertebrate paleontology
>>> background, where the monetization of beautiful or rare fossils has
>>> resulted in potentially scientifically important specimens disappearing
>>> into private collections and has muddied the ethics of collecting. Maybe
>>> other lessons could come from that field as museums do sell casts of their
>>> specimens, and I'm not sure how that complicates things when private
>>> collectors donate specimens. Regardless, I do hope that lawyers and
>>> ethicists - perhaps even economists? - are consulted if the natural history
>>> collections community wants to explore this funding option.
>>>
>>> In response to your last paragraph, I would point out that all of the
>>> benefits of VEROs that you list are actually just benefits of 3D
>>> digitization of specimens, so those benefits could and do occur when
>>> funding is available without any of the complications that trading in NFTs
>>> may introduce. If VEROs do take off, I think that if local scientists from
>>> low GDP countries do not have the appropriate expertise to describe
>>> holotype species, which is a premise that I don't necessarily accept, then
>>> any profit from VEROs should go towards funding their training and the
>>> support of their collections, not towards digitizing more specimens so that
>>> scientists from wealthier countries can continue to build their careers on
>>> the biodiversity and work of collectors in low GDP countries.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Catherine
>>>
>>> <https://www.smm.org/>
>>>
>>> *Catherine M. Early, PhD*
>>>
>>> she/her
>>>
>>> *Barbara Brown Chair of Ornithology*
>>>
>>> e: cearly at smm.org
>>>
>>> https://catherineearly.wixsite.com/home
>>>
>>> We envision a world where everyone has the power to use science to make
>>> lives better,
>>> and we are committed to using STEM as a tool to advocate for justice and
>>> equity.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 2:38 PM Samuel Bolton <
>>> samuel.bolton77 at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Catherine,
>>>>
>>>> You make a lot of good points, and there are potential risks, which is
>>>> why we think the correct thing to do is to see if the market exists before
>>>> we plunge in. If there is a market, then it's important to understand how
>>>> that market can be responsibly sustained.
>>>>
>>>> *Catherine: I want to make sure members of our community are aware of
>>>> some of the concerns regarding NFTs. For one, they rely on a system that
>>>> has a large carbon footprint. *
>>>>
>>>> If the Blockchain networks consume more energy than is sustainable and
>>>> morally reasonable, then the endeavor should not be pursued or there should
>>>> only be a small number of VEROs based on the most important type specimens
>>>> rather than large numbers of less important specimens. This generates a lot
>>>> of monetary value for a relatively small amount of effort and a small
>>>> carbon footprint. We do not see museums generating VEROs of anything close
>>>> to a majority of their holdings. It would probably not be a sustainable
>>>> business model in addition to being environmentally unsustainable. And so a
>>>> small number of VEROs linked to scientifically important specimens should
>>>> outweigh any suboptimal energy usage of the Blockchain network as a whole.
>>>>
>>>> *Catherine: If we create a market for VEROs of 3D models of museum
>>>> specimens, what will prevent anyone from creating and selling a non-VERO
>>>> NFT of the 3D models of museum specimens*
>>>>
>>>> We predict a non-VERO NFT is going to be more or less worthless for a
>>>> reason you allude to, which is that anyone can produce one. People will
>>>> therefore buy the VEROs instead. VEROs are NFTs that would have to be
>>>> approved as VEROs through a smart contract.
>>>>
>>>> *Catherine: Will funders and administrators expect museums to generate
>>>> a certain percent of their income from minting VEROs?*
>>>>
>>>> Monetization of collections has an initial startup cost with respect to
>>>> generating VEROS, which could bring about more funding in the short to
>>>> medium term. But in the longer term, yes, it might mean that we have to
>>>> rely on fewer government handouts, which are already diminishing
>>>> dramatically. In other words, it could improve the public perception of
>>>> museums.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Catherine: Will customs officials accept that the specimens we import
>>>> are priceless but carry no monetary value if we then sell the rights to
>>>> digital models of the specimens? *
>>>> Well we will not be selling the rights to the specimens because that is
>>>> not how NFTs work. But yes, specimens would have greater monetary value.
>>>> But there are already too many stringent rules in place that are making it
>>>> almost impossible to obtain collection and export permits from many places.
>>>> Sure, VEROs might make this worse. But we believe there is a much greater
>>>> advantage, which is that local scientists from low GDP countries, which
>>>> include many megadiverse countries, should receive the funds needed to
>>>> generate good quality 3D models from which they can mint important VEROs.
>>>> High quality 3D models would allow holotype species to be described by an
>>>> appropriate expert anywhere in the world. Then, the moment those VEROs are
>>>> minted and put on the market, the 3D model would be available for anyone in
>>>> the world to examine. That is how this commodity works. So there would be
>>>> less reason for scientists to travel long distances. Indeed, this aspect of
>>>> VEROs actually decreases carbon emissions because it decreases the demand
>>>> for long haul flights.
>>>>
>>>> Respectfully,
>>>>
>>>> Sam
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Aug 11, 2021 at 12:48 PM Catherine Early (she/her) <
>>>> cearly at smm.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Sam,
>>>>>
>>>>> We certainly all need more funding and this would be a creative
>>>>> solution, but I want to make sure members of our community are aware of
>>>>> some of the concerns regarding NFTs. For one, they rely on a system that
>>>>> has a large carbon footprint. Perhaps your article omitted this issue
>>>>> because there aren't many peer-reviewed publications on the topic. Here are
>>>>> some opinion and popular press articles about it:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://everestpipkin.medium.com/but-the-environmental-issues-with-cryptoart-1128ef72e6a3
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/15/22328203/nft-cryptoart-ethereum-blockchain-climate-change
>>>>>
>>>>> There have also been issues with people other than the creators of the
>>>>> media making and profiting from NFTs of the original media, with the
>>>>> creators never seeing that money (
>>>>> https://www.theverge.com/2021/3/20/22334527/nft-scams-artists-opensea-rarible-marble-cards-fraud-art).
>>>>> You recognize this issue in your article and propose VEROs as a way around
>>>>> this. But if we create a market for VEROs of 3D models of museum specimens,
>>>>> what will prevent anyone from creating and selling a non-VERO NFT of the 3D
>>>>> models of museum specimens that are freely available for educational use
>>>>> and making money from that, thus profiting from the demand that we helped
>>>>> to create?
>>>>>
>>>>> I also worry that monetizing our collections will have legal and
>>>>> ethical ramifications that we haven't considered. Yes, we would be
>>>>> monetizing digital models of our specimens and not the specimens
>>>>> themselves, but the digital models can only exist because we collect and
>>>>> care for the physical specimens. Will funders and administrators expect
>>>>> museums to generate a certain percent of their income from minting VEROs?
>>>>> Will customs officials accept that the specimens we import are priceless
>>>>> but carry no monetary value if we then sell the rights to digital models of
>>>>> the specimens?
>>>>>
>>>>>  Given that we as a community are dedicated to the preservation of
>>>>> biodiversity (threatened by things like large carbon footprints) and
>>>>> because of the other issues I brought up, we should think hard before
>>>>> diving into the world of NFTs. I welcome further discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>> Catherine
>>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.smm.org/>
>>>>>
>>>>> *Catherine M. Early, PhD*
>>>>>
>>>>> she/her
>>>>>
>>>>> *Barbara Brown Chair of Ornithology*
>>>>>
>>>>> e: cearly at smm.org
>>>>>
>>>>> https://catherineearly.wixsite.com/home
>>>>>
>>>>> We envision a world where everyone has the power to use science to
>>>>> make lives better,
>>>>> and we are committed to using STEM as a tool to advocate for justice
>>>>> and equity.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 9:14 AM Samuel Bolton <
>>>>> samuel.bolton77 at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please see the link below to a paper on the use of non-fungible
>>>>>> tokens (NFTs) to help 3D digitize natural history collections. This email
>>>>>> is to alert you to this potential funding mechanism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.mapress.com/mt/article/view/megataxa.6.2.2
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> NFTs are potentially important to us because we are one of the few
>>>>>> communities that can greatly benefit from 3D versions of our holdings. I
>>>>>> don't think the art history community is dealing with a mass extinction.
>>>>>> And every important piece of art has already been photographed. Moreover,
>>>>>> unlike the art history community, we are far short of the funds that we
>>>>>> need to do our jobs properly.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is truly astonishing to see the sums of money that are being paid
>>>>>> for NFTs like CryptoPunks, largely because these things are rare rather
>>>>>> than genuinely good or even deliberate art (see post script). Perhaps we,
>>>>>> as a community, can add some quality to NFTs while also using them to fund
>>>>>> an important enterprise. More than 2 billion dollars were spent on NFTs
>>>>>> during the first quarter of 2021 alone. That is a lot of money for
>>>>>> digitization.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Here is a link to a website we just developed to help explain the
>>>>>> concept of VEROs to a broader audience.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.vero-nft.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best wishes to you all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sam
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (contact details on the above link)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> P.S. Below is a link to CryptoPunk 7523. It is an NFT worth over 11
>>>>>> million dollars? It’s not valuable because it is art (cryptopunks were
>>>>>> originally intended for a smartphone app). It is valuable because it is the
>>>>>> only one of 10,000 cryptopunks to be an alien (blue skin) that is sporting
>>>>>> a surgical mask. In other words, the investor who bought this bought it
>>>>>> because it is weird and one of a kind. There is plenty of weird and
>>>>>> wonderful in our collections, and a lot of it is one of a kind (e.g.,
>>>>>> holotypes).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2021/natively-digital-cryptopunk-7523/cryptopunk-7523
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Nhcoll-l mailing list
>>>>>> Nhcoll-l at mailman.yale.edu
>>>>>> https://mailman.yale.edu/mailman/listinfo/nhcoll-l
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> NHCOLL-L is brought to you by the Society for the Preservation of
>>>>>> Natural History Collections (SPNHC), an international society whose
>>>>>> mission is to improve the preservation, conservation and management of
>>>>>> natural history collections to ensure their continuing value to
>>>>>> society. See http://www.spnhc.org for membership information.
>>>>>> Advertising on NH-COLL-L is inappropriate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.yale.edu/pipermail/nhcoll-l/attachments/20210813/7993e892/attachment.html>