A golden eagle attacks a tethered and muzzled wolf as part of a cultural hunting festival.

OPINION: Last May, the dailypetfwd blog posted a piece about the Salburun Festival in the village of Tyup some 370km from Bishkek near Issyk-Kul lake in Kyrgyzstan. In the climax event of the festival hunters muzzle a wild wolf and tether it to a stake in an open field. Trained eagles dive on the defenceless wolf and eventually kill it.

The festival itself (see documentary footage here) is stage to perpetuate and revitalise the hunting cultural practice in the area. It attracts hunters from all over the country. Much of the event is devoted to demonstrating the prowess of their hunting dogs and eagles, taking pheasants and other prey. Wolves are killed as part of this festival because they are considered a menace in rural Kyrgyzstan, responsible for killing horses, sheep and cows. The event also demonstrates the skill of the trainer and the prowess of the bird.

A bull suffers in the ring in Mexico

To those of us looking from the outside, torturing an animal to death as part of a public festival is highly distasteful. The condemnation of bull fighting is, for instance, becoming increasingly universal, even within Spain and Mexico, in a debate that has been going since the 16th century. In the recent book Intangible Natural Heritage: New Perspectives on Natural Objects, published by Routledge and sponsored by ICOM NATHIST, the concept of intangible natural heritage specifically does not include activities that are contrary to the health and well being of animals.

The faithful prepare to slaughter buffalo as part of the Gadhimai Festival in Nepal

The question, however, remains, of whether cultural practice that involves the ritual killing of animals contravenes some ‘universal’ moral or ethical law. Every five years, about 5 million people participate in the Gadhimai festival, a month-long Hindu festival that is held once every five years at the temple of Bariyarpur in southern Nepal. The event comprises the world’s largest sacrifice of animals, including countless water buffalo, pigs, goats, cows, chicken and pigeons, in honour of Gadhimai, the Hindu goddess of power. It draws many adherents from India, where the practice is banned.

Cock fighting draws huge crowds in Thailand

Nations have the sovereign right to decide their ethical boundaries in legislation. Ethical codes and, in most countries, social mores are matters of personal choice. An activity, such as cock fighting, that that is illegal in many countries still an officially sanctioned sport in Thailand, drawing huge crowds and corporate sponsorship.

There is no simple answer. Despite the existence of an enormous and persuasive body of thought on animal rights, States may choose to adhere to, or ignore, the tenets put forward by philosophers; their citizens may act in accordance with their country’s legislation, whatever it allows them to do. Do we have the right to say an activity is wrong, even when a State does not agree? Arguably, and admitting the risk of paternalism, we do. Discussing, protesting, commenting on one’s beliefs lead to change in practice. Otherwise, there seems little reason to have a moral code in first place.

Related articles

• Rabbi Wolpe defends animal sacrifice (whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com)
• Petions do work: Sri Lanka mass animal sacrifice banned (our-compass.org)
• Ricky Gervais Partners with WSPA to End Bullfighting (prweb.com)

Skeleton of the Giant Moa by Gresham. Source: Wikimedia Commons

A number of workers in New Zealand have been becoming concerned at rash of moa bones for sale via online auctions. One, at least, is being provided with a map to its location. This is obviously of concern ethically, although a technicality in the legislation allows it.

Although some inroads into the ethics of fossil hunting are alluded to (see reference here), little information is currently available. As a result, even to those interested in adhering to accepted best practice may have difficulty accessing it. In the United States, the Association of Applied Paleontological Sciences (AAPS) has posted a code (here), which proscribes standards of behaviour for the collectors, though not specifically any protection to material itself.

While international legislation on the sale of fossils and sub-fossils varies, ICOM NATHIST considers that this material should be afforded the same protection under CITES as material from extant species. This is one of many issues that is covered in ICOM’s Code of Ethics for Natural History Museums.

After a number of drafts and rounds of comments, it is almost ready for ratification by the ICOM Ethics Committee and formal adoption. It is hoped that the the Code will provide backing for improvements on many fronts, of which fossil collecting is only one example.

Tarbosaurus from the Muenster Museum. Are fossil specimens afforded sufficient protection under international legislation? Source: Wikimedia Commons

This blog has been conceived as a forum for those wishing to share best practice and ethics of natural history, or present challenging situations for discussion. If you know of issues that should be brought to our attention in this context, please feel post them to us on this blog or make contact directly.

Image by antiguadailyphoto.com via Flickr

The ICOM conference was, for NATHIST and the Working Group a complete success. A review of the conference in general (at least from the NATHIST perspective) is at http://www.nzmuseums.co.nz/news/icom-conference-in-shanghai/

The largest implication post-conference was the fact that the NATHIST-suggested theme for the 2012 International Museum Day “Museums in a Changing World”, was accepted by the ICOM Council. We will, of course, assist with preparations for the event, and it will be a springboard for other iniatives.

The conference was also a chance to liaise with the ICOM Ethics Committee, especially with our ongoing work creating the Code of Ethics for Natural History Museums. It’s been a long process, but good finally to be close to a finished draft. (Major thanks to everybody, especially Adrian Norris, their work.)

If people are intersted in contributing to ICOM NATHIST or to thinking around the ethics of natural history institions, please feel free to contact us.

Should museums display ivory and other material from threatened species?

As we’re gearing up for the ICOM General Conference in Shangai this Novemeber, it’s time to start thinking, again, about the activities of the Ethics Working Group, and how best to progress them.

It is a chance we have not had since the General Conference in Vienna in 2007 to discuss and brainstorm in person many of the issues our wide-spread group has been discussing remotely. For instance, we have been communicating about the sale of museum collections, display of human remains, display of biological material from threatened species, the long-term fate of historically important dioramas and taxidermy, and care of live animals within institutions.

How should live animals in museums be treated? Are museums the same as zoos?

These are being covered in our draft Code of Best Practice for Natural History Musesums, the development of which has turned out to be a lengthy process, involving many stakeholders. The draft has been improved by a diverse group of colleagues, including members of ICOM’s Ethics Committee, as well as various curatorial and research staff at different institutions.

One question that has come up is whether a code, as such, is actually required at all. Many museums already have an internal code of best practice, effective ethics commitees and are well-equipped to address issues as they arise. A few workers at these institutions have questions whether having an international code would be of benefit.

We feel that it is. First, while many larger museums don’t need additional capacity in this area, there are others, and not just small regional institutions, that do not deal effectively with ethical issues involving natural history objects. We know, because we’ve spoken to many of them, that there is a need, and that our document will be used and referred to.

Should fossils be considered geological specimens, or be subject to the same restrictions as biological matieral?

Second, and more importantly, it gives us, the Ethics Working Group, a common ground to use as a starting point to address individual ethical issues when they arise. If, long term, we end up mediating, arbitrating, or even simply giving support on individual issues, a solid, well-considered document is an absolute must. Getting together also provides us for updates on other initiatives, such as our upcoming book Intangible Natural Heritage, to be published with Routledge early next year.

Are their commonalities around the display of human remains?

However, the Shanghai conference will not only be an opportunity to do  operational work. It also provides an all-important venue for us referesh our commitment, to readjust our focus as well as our membership.

This is necessary if we are going to make the contribution that we’d intended to by forming the group. It’s a contribution that does not benefit only NATHIST, or even only ICOM but, we sincerely hope, the broad community of natural history museums. I am very much looking forward to seeing everybody in November. – Eric Dorfman

Unethical specimens?

“During an ICOM-ASPAC meeting in Tokyo in December some participants launched the idea of an all Asian (ICOM) Code of Ethics for museums next to the existing ICOM Code of Ethics. Does that make sense?”

It’s been a lively discussion since. (See it here.) The basis appears to be, at least to some degree, that Asia has, as Brinkman puts it “a stronger sense of ‘group-awareness’ instead of focusing primarily on the rights (and obligations) of the individual.”

Aside from the obvious difficulties of having two Codes sitting side by side, presumably in different languages which might have different slants (think of the Treaty of Waitaingi all you New Zealanders out there!) it begs the question of whether, especially in a museum context, there are universal truths that can, and should, be applied to everybody across the board. As Olga Baird puts it “museum language – the language of original artefacts – is universal…”

If we were talking about zoos, it might, perhaps, be more straightfoward. The World Association of Zoos and Aquariums has its code of ethics (here). Statements like “Members of WAZA will ensure that all animals in their care are treated with the utmost care and their welfare should be paramount all times.” are pretty indisputable. Human rights ethics are the same.

But not everything is as clear cut in the museum sector. For instance, heritage objects can sometimes fall into a grey area that defies (sorry) objectivity, leaving them open to differences of opinion among different disciplines (e.g. natural vs. cultural). Looking at the current Code from an admittedly Western perspective, it’s difficult to see where it strays from what could be considered ‘unversal truths’. The triennal meeting in Shanghai will provide a forum for many cross-cultural discussion, including this.

In the meantime, we’ll continue to publish more, as the topic develops.

For those interested in viewing the ICOM Code of Ethics, it can be viewed (here).

They say the project aims to provide museums with a toolkit of methods they can use to better interpret their collections. For me, the issue is also touches on the topic of heritage collections which, for many members of the Ethics Working Group is an ethical issue. The questions surrounds what we do with heritage material which may not be of use as natural history objects, but incredibly important as a cultural object.

How do we measure its worth, and in what context? An example that springs to mind is Phar Lap the famous race horse which now resides in Wellington (skeleton) and Melbourne (skin and heart). As a piece of natural history, it’s just a specimen of Equus caballus, of little importance to natural historians. To cultural historians, however, it’s a subject of warring national prides, a symbol of achievement and evidence of a seedy underbelly that nobody before had imagined existed. While no parts of Phar Lap are destined for the bin, many other less famous, but equally valuable, cultural treasures masquerading as natural history objects are.

Then, of course, there’s the issue of dioramas. If a wall was painted in the 19th Century to display a group of animals to an audience with a certain set of values and expectations, should we in the 21st Century keep it as a piece of cultural history? A historian would argue yes. A museum manager, on the other hand, would likely want to update the space for something more relevant to modern audiences.

When does an object, or grouping of objects transcend what it is and become important for what it means? And who makes that decision?

- Eric

NTM is an international journal for history and ethics of natural sciences, technology and medicine that publishes original research papers, book reviews and news. In addition every issue features a survey article of tropical interest on current questions in the history of science. By publishing a wide variety of research results on all phases of the history of mankind as it evolved in all quarters of the Earth NTM seeks to intensify the reader’s interest in the lively development of the historiography of the sciences. The journal welcomes articles dealing with ethics, history of civilization and theory of science.

See it here.

• Updates on latest news and progress with our initiatives
• A forum to express your ideas
• The chance to link with others in your community

This blog is administered by the Working Group Chair, Eric Dorfman. Please direct any questions to him at eric@eklektusinc.com