University officials say they cannot afford to maintain one of the largest herbariums in the United States. Researchers are urging Duke to reconsider.

Duke University has decided to close its herbarium, a collection of 825,000 specimens of plants, fungi and algae that was established more than a century ago. The collection, one of the largest and most diverse in the country, has helped scientists map the diversity of plant life and chronicle the impact of humans on the environment.

The university’s decision has left researchers reeling. “This is such a devastating blow for biodiversity science,” said Erika Edwards, the curator of the Yale Herbarium. “The entire community is simultaneously shocked and outraged.”

Scientific societies have also protested the move. “Duke’s decision to forgo responsibility of their herbarium specimens sets a terrible precedent,” the Natural Science Collections Alliance wrote in a letter to the university last Friday.

The alliance, along with six other scientific societies, endorsed a petition asking Duke to reconsider closing the herbarium. As of Wednesday, it had gained over 11,000 signatures.

Non-paywall link

  • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Whose idea was it to give one of the shittiest universities such a big responsibility? Duke is basically a giant sports program with a religious school attached. What do they care about science?

    • MammyWhammy@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      52
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Calling Duke a ‘religious school’ is disingenuous. They are a secular school that has a divinity program. The university pre-dates the divinity school by almost a century.

      They are widely seen as a world class medical, business and law school. Contributions include, the first ultrasound imaging, the first CFD analysis software, and cochlear implant development.

      They don’t focus on sports anymore than other peer institutions (think Northwestern, Stanford, Vanderbilt, or Notre Dame) they just caught lightning in a bottle with Coach K, and have been really good at basketball for a while.

      I say all of this to highlight, they are a legitimate, well funded active contributor to academia and research.

      They aren’t some hack religious institution that’s trying to play being a real school while shoveling indoctrination down your throat like BYU or Liberty.

      Duke is a legitimate research university that should be criticized even more harshly for the decision outlined in the article because of their history as a top tier research institution, not because they’re “a religious school that doesn’t care about science.”

      • batmaniam@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        After a quick googling, they also were on the religiously unpopular side of embryonic stem cells.

        • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          21
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          “Duke says embryos aren’t children, which anyone with eyes can see, and that’s why they’re a great university.”

          • MammyWhammy@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            They’re a secular institution that was on the leading edge of stem cell research when it was far more controversial than it is now.

            I don’t think those are “low-ass” standards.

              • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                Scientists tend to care about science, that is indeed correct.

                Your earlier comment stated that they didn’t care for science and where preoccupied with religious ideologies.

                Which is it that you believe now?

              • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                That’s a disingenuous statement. Gregor Mendel was a monk(and became an abbot). Darwin very nearly became a priest and waited years to publish the origin of species until Alfred Wallace independently came to the same conclusion partly because Darwin was conflicted about how it went against Christian dogma at the time. Even now there are plenty of scientists with religious faith and belief. There’s no scientific guidance on souls.

                • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  Your evidence is people who lived a century or two ago?

                  According to a 1998 study, 92% of members of the National Academy of Sciences reject the belief in a higher power or God. Now decades later, that number is closer to 100%. And a soul is a philosophical concept, not an empirical one.

                  • phdepressed@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    NAS is far from every scientist. There’s a graduate+faculty faith organization at most if not all R1 institutes.

                    As you state a soul is a philosophical concept which is why faith is so involved in trying to dictate what “life” is.

                    If you want to beat them we need to be arguing at the correct level for understanding. The church not caring til Roe and abortion of some sort being done for hundreds or thousands of years is not the argument that matters to fundies. It is when life is determined to have a soul in their belief. If scientific facts argue against philosophical belief, neither side will ever understand the other.

          • kora@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            9
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            If the university president sucked your dick for breakfast every morning it wouldn’t matter. Way to pick up on the least emphasized and important point to fuel your gate boner.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        I assume you mean secular, not non-secular. Non-secular would mean they do have a religious affiliation.

      • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        16
        ·
        9 months ago

        That’s like saying “they have commitments to a cult, but they’re good at science.” I don’t think non-secular institutions should have accreditation. Period.

          • xkforce@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            9 months ago

            In a country increasingly governed by religious ideals that strip the rights of women and minorities, it is harder and harder not to hate religion.

            • kora@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              Agreed. I’m a Socialist Bi/Pan Transwoman and a “Christian” for lack of less tinged and equivalently brief word.

              I choose to look at these types of things as opportunities to praise good opinions.

              Whenever the collapse happens, assuming there are still people around, we’ll still have to live with people after the fact. Accepting the inevitability of “religious thoughts” and helping to mold and shape those ideas is better than failing to remove them entirely.

              Also, its a healthier mindset in general, for me at least.

              • xkforce@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                I would be fine with tolerating religion’s existence if it remained a personal belief that was not forced upon others. But the moment it is, that means war.

                • kora@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  I totally agree. I personally just try to be a part of influencing the… culture? Of religion from a less antagonistic or opposing position. History has proven, piss off a country and religion may be used to retaliate, piss off a religion and countries will retaliate. Understanding people for what we all are in essence is something that has worked in my life on the micro scale, and despite having little to show for my efforts so far, I think its more than nothing…

              • yeahiknow3@lemmings.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                I accept the existence of religion by virtue of the fact that humans are half a chromosome away from chimpanzees. I’m not happy about it, though.