The illicit centipede raises a thorny question: Should the journals have refused to publish an article on this subject? | Science

By Yao-Hua LawFeb. 10, 2021 at 12:20

In 2018, a new species of centipede graced the pages of the prominent taxonomic journal Zootaxa. Over 14 centimeters long, with striking teal-colored legs, it lives in the montane and mossy forests of the Philippines. Now, however, the centipede is in the spotlight. The Philippine government says the Spanish amateur neurologist and biologist who described the species acquired its specimens illegally.

Neither the journal’s editors nor its peer reviewers took the measure of fault – and the journal lacks a policy requiring documentation that specimens were collected with the proper permits. Some editors say Science that should change. Others fear that research will be hampered when undescribed species quickly become extinct. And all agree that journals would find it difficult to enforce such rules, given the wide variety of legal requirements of countries. “There is just no way for a journal to control this,” says Maarten Christenhusz, a freelance botanist and editor of the Zoological Journal of Linnaean Society.

Carles Doménech of the University of Alicante in Spain had contacted Filipino collectors after seeing images of the centipede online. One, Michael Andrew Cipat, caught wild centipedes and sold them – dead and alive – to Doménech in 2016 and 2017. Cipat recounts Science he had collection permits and a friend with export permits shipped the specimens. But the Philippine Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources says it is illegal to sell specimens to a foreign researcher who has not signed an agreement with the DENR. “The Philippine government does not condone such illegal acts,” a representative wrote to Science. Collectors could be jailed or fined under a Philippine wildlife law.

Doménech says he didn’t know he needed a permit to export centipedes, calling himself a “newbie” who largely worked alone. After submitting his article describing the new species, which he named Scolopendra paradoxa, no more Zootaxa neither of the five reviewers of his manuscript asked about the permits, he says. “Now I know it [was] an error, ”he wrote in an email. “Now I capture my specimens and I don’t let anyone do it for me without the corresponding legal permits.”

Zhi-Qiang Zhang, editor-in-chief of Zootaxa, who studies mites at Landcare Research in New Zealand, says that although the journal does not impose licensing requirements, individual editors can reject manuscripts that do not have a license. He says the journal’s editors had previously discussed whether to ask authors to meet licensing requirements and couldn’t agree. “Most publishers had negative views on ‘permits’ or ‘legal requirements’ for specimens,” Zhang says, citing views that such regulations hinder research and conservation of biodiversity.

A reviewer of Doménech’s manuscript, Carlos Martínez, a centipede taxonomist at the University of Turku Zoological Museum, says it was “really crazy” to learn the origins of centipede specimens. “As examiners, we have the right to know if the specimens were obtained illegally,” he says. “We have the right to refuse to examine the document.” Martínez says he interviewed four of the five Filipino collectors cited in the article and confirmed that the specimens were illegal. But he says critics can’t expect to regularly probe the legality of the specimens. “We examiners are not supposed to be the police.”

Specimens illegal in research have been exposed on occasion, but journal editors disagree on the extent of the problem. One editor described it as “insignificant”; another said it was “impossible to know”. They also disagree on what to do about it. Louis Deharveng, Deputy Editor-in-Chief of ZooKeys and an emeritus researcher on arthropods at the National Museum of Natural History in Paris, says that an editorial policy on permits “is essential”.

But of five respected taxonomic journals, two – the Zoological Journal of Linnaean Society and Zootaxa– do not ask authors to comply with laws on collecting specimens. (Science will soon add this respect for legal requirements to its editorial policy.)

Shaun Winterton, Editor-in-Chief of Systematic entomology and an entomologist from the California Department of Food and Agriculture, says his journal tells authors to follow the law, but adds, “If we publishers suspect that the material was illegally collected, it could be difficult for us to confirm. (He notes that he is speaking on behalf of the journal, not his employer.) The complex and varying legal requirements that countries place on research are a barrier.

Another complication is the Nagoya International Protocol, which aims to ensure “fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of genetic resources”. The agreement may govern the importation of certain specimens, but it is not clear whether it applies to taxonomic specimens. The Nagoya Protocol allows each signatory country to define what constitutes use of genetic resources; Spain claims that EU legislation that applies the Nagoya Protocol does not apply to taxonomic studies such as that of Doménech.

Gonzalo Giribet, editor-in-chief of Systematics of invertebrates and a zoologist at Harvard University, adds that critics can’t take responsibility either. “They do this altruistically,” he said, making him fearful of adding legal concerns to their review burden. “Reviews should contain clear statements on the origins of biological material and ethics, as well as on ultimate responsibility [for legality] should be the responsibility of the authors.

Clear information about legal requirements would help critics, editors and researchers, says Caroline Fukushima, an arachnologist at the Finnish Museum of Natural History. In June 2020, at Conservation biologyShe and her colleagues recommended creating a platform for countries’ legal requirements for wildlife research. “We are facing habitat destruction, so we need to make life easier and faster for scientists,” she says.