Why Do Scientists Collect Specimens?

Later that afternoon after releasing the odd unwanted bird from our nets, we finally caught a male black manakin. Like clockwork each team member assumed their roles for the preparation of this specimen. The title of today's post is a question I asked myself that day on that trip: why do scientists collect specimens? This is also a question I have been asked many times before, and discussion sometimes ended in a heated debate. Like the majority of research topics, the benefits of specimen collecting are mostly indirect and sadly unappreciated.

At its most basic, a specimen serves as definite proof that a species lives in an area. Wrong identifications are reduced, as the specimen is readily available for review. This is useful when new species are discovered, as an extensive amount of work must be done before it can get its name as a species. But this is far from being the only purpose of a specimen.

A specimen itself can represent an almost limitless amount of data. When we collected our prize, we took measurements of its morphological features, blood and feather samples from various portions of its body. When we processed and prepared it as a specimen, samples were taken from parts of its brain. Its organs were measured and collected in such a way that would ensure that it would be viable for research many years from now. Nothing was wasted.

(Us preparing a blood sample)

In our case, the blood of our bird would be used for DNA studies, while its digestive tract could be used to study its diet. Instead of killing multiple animals for different studies, only a few have to be sacrificed for collection in a single expedition, and scientists who are not able to make it out into the field can work on the animal from their lab.

Another question I often get asked after explaining this is: why do scientists keep collecting specimens? Isn't a single one enough? The answer is "not quite". The first reason being that of research design: the more individuals you sample, the more reliable any conclusions will be. For example, if someone were to judge the entirety of humanity on whether or not I liked chocolate, they'd conclude that chocolate was a torture device fed only to the masochistic.

(Seriously, look at that stuff.)

The second reason is that a specimen is like a photograph; a single moment in time, captured. An animal is affected by its environment and the factors present during its life. These affect its characteristics, making it a representative of the time period and the location from which it is taken. As the development of new methods of research continues, we may find ourselves in future with new capabilities, new questions to answer, and the specimens to answer those.

There's an inherent irony to be had in killing the same animals one is trying to save, but there's a purpose. In the end, research will benefit animals and humans alike. Conservation decisions cannot be made without understanding a species, and medical breakthroughs might be waiting. From the sacrifice of a few, we can gain the data to save far more. Scientists are not evil creatures merely out there to murder everything we see.