Conix Stijn
Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Free School Lane, CB2 3RE, Cambridge, UK..
Zootaxa. 2018 Apr 30;4415(2):390-392. doi: 10.11646/zootaxa.4415.2.9.
Garnett and Christidis (2017) [hereafter GC] recently proposed that the International Union of the Biological Sciences should centrally regulate the taxonomy of complex organisms. Their proposal was met with much criticism (e.g. Hołyński 2017; Thomson et al., 2018), and perhaps most extensively from Raposo et al. (2017) in this journal. The main target of this criticism was GC's call to, first, "restrict the freedom of taxonomic action", and, second, to let social, political and conservation values weigh in on species classification. Some commentators even went as far as to draw a comparison with the infamous Lysenko-case of state-controlled and heavily restricted science (Raposo et al. 2017, 181; Hołyński 2017, 12). This comment will argue, without thereby endorsing GC's position, that these two aspects of their views need not be as threatening as this comparison suggests, and indeed are very reasonable.
加尼特和克里斯蒂迪斯(2017年)[以下简称GC]最近提议,国际生物科学联盟应对复杂生物体的分类法进行集中管理。他们的提议遭到了诸多批评(例如霍林斯基,2017年;汤姆森等人,2018年),或许最广泛的批评来自于本期刊的拉波索等人(2017年)。这种批评的主要目标是GC的呼吁,其一,“限制分类行动的自由度”,其二,让社会、政治和保护价值在物种分类中发挥作用。一些评论家甚至将其与臭名昭著的李森科事件相提并论,在该事件中科学受到国家控制且受到严格限制(拉波索等人,2017年,第181页;霍林斯基,2017年,第12页)。本评论将在不支持GC立场的情况下论证,他们观点的这两个方面并不像这种比较所暗示的那样具有威胁性,实际上是非常合理的。