Eric Borneman coral controversy

[StevenPro]

Move on then. Here's the biggest question. If you were given 1 rare coral by the government to research, and the coral doubled in size over the year you spent researching it, would you consider half of it yours to do whatever you please with? It's simple to infer from EB's questions that is his position. That doesn't sound like the position a researcher would take to me.

The way I read that passage, Eric is asking the sanctuary to get clarification from their attorneys on how they deal with "offspring". The idea all along was to propagate specimens to sell to other researchers so they don't have to go collect their own. Lauri says that the sanctuary cannot give Eric corals to sell to anyone, including researchers. So, this project originally intended to be self-funding, might have a revenue issue. That is why clarification was asked regarding propagation made from the sanctuary corals.

 

[Anonymous]

The corals were never owned by Eric, they are natural resources, owned by each of us and the property of the US public.

 

[Anonymous]

I could just as easily argue that it points to the sloppiness of the sanctuary.

I told you it's all the Sanctuary's fault.

They should have never believed his story and should have checked it out.

Why do you think someone had to file FOIA to get this in the first place.

 

[smithcreek]

The way I read that passage, Eric is asking the sanctuary to get clarification from their attorneys on how they deal with "offspring". The idea all along was to propagate specimens to sell to other researchers so they don't have to go collect their own. Lauri says that the sanctuary cannot give Eric corals to sell to anyone, including researchers. So, this project originally intended to be self-funding, might have a revenue issue. That is why clarification was asked regarding propagation made from the sanctuary corals.

And to me, that's where the obvious heart of the problem is. EB had one thing in mind, to establish at a minimum a self-sustaining, and hints at a possibly profit generating enterprise. Unfortunately the permits did not give permission to do that, whether through beauracratic ineptitude or as I said before, a "do now, ask for permission later" approach to aquiring the corals. Seems to me that if the plan was to sell corals to anyone, researchers or aquarium trade it should have been plainly/obviously/no mistake about it/make for damn sure put in the permit and known by the government from top to bottom before the whole thing took place.

Seems from the emails that EB at least informally discussed what his plans to propogate and sell right from the start. I have to admit, if I was in EB's position and I had the chance to get the corals under one permit, hoping to get the neccesary permits down the line, and every conversation I had to that point made it seem likely I would have probably done the same thing. His apparently walking away from the whole mess when it went south is troubling.

 

[sihaya]

They should have never believed his story and should have checked it out.

Hence my question... where's the line between sloppiness and naiveté? I think it's kinda fuzzy in this case.

 

[sihaya]

they are natural resources, owned by each of us and the property of the US public.

If only everyone could thoroughly understand that... maybe then they'd take these corals more to their own hearts and stop asking why we should care.

 

[Anonymous]

I know this is a hobby board and Eric's main business is representing the hobby. It stands to reason that the conversation would center around Eric, but Eric is not the center of this discussion.

The discussion is that the Sanctuary gave someone a permit, for a long term study, and that person was not qualified to do that study.
Obviously, he was kicked out before he even got started good.

The fact that the Sanctuary had to terminate that person's permit and demand that the corals be returned.

The fact that to get this information, someone had to file FOIA and the Sanctuary has not been forthcoming with information about our natural resources. Resources that the Sanctuary is charged with protecting.

I'll say it again. This story is not about Eric. Eric will just be collateral damage.

 

[MrAnderson]

Yeah, my interpretation matches smithcreek's. just to be clear, i do believe there were good intentions on EBs part (road to hell blah blah blah) and these were articulated from the start.

I just think that the whole idea is unreasonable. If you could see the facilities that research-grade animals are propagated in (like the Jackson Labs), you'd realize how silly of an idea it is to try to do this with corals in a normal aquaculture facility. The isolation rooms are negative-pressured, heavily filtered air, individuals are quarantined, workers fully gowned, everything aseptically tip-top.

the entire thing is disappointing on so many levels.

 

[StevenPro]

Ok people, here, from Eric's online resume:

2001-2005, Chair, Committee to Develop model test systems and coral “lab rats”: Culture of Aquarium Corals for Disease Research, Coral Health and Disease Consortium, US Coral Reef Task Force.

But seriously, of all the things we could be discussing, this has got to be one of the most fruitless.

Chair of one committee in the CHDC.

It does matter when someone states that Eric didn't contact the sanctuary regarding the difficulties with Reef Savers. While that is true, within an hour of discovering that the locks had been changed, he contacted his superiors at CHDC. He can only contact superiors if he has them. If he runs the entire organization, there would be no one to report to.

I also find it disturbing that you so casually dismiss someone making factually incorrect statements repeatedly.

 

[sihaya]

srsly?: sounds reasonable perspective... and spoken like an intelligent youthful scientist. (I'd have left out the "youthful" had it not been for the shameless use of "blah blah blah." )

 

[sihaya]

I also find it disturbing that you so casually dismiss someone making factually incorrect statements repeatedly.

Steven - did I dismiss you when you admitted to not knowing that Reef Savers did not have separate rooms and buildings? No. I'm still doing my best to respectfully debate other points with you.

No one is perfect and I think cracker2 either made an honest mistake OR just failed to fully articulate what he/she meant by saying that. Considering the exceptionally level of knowledge and intelligence in the rest of his/her comments, I think it fair to forgive this one vague or incorrect statement. He/she has since clarified the point (see above posts by Craker2).

 

[StevenPro]

Steven - did I dismiss you when you admitted to not knowing that Reef Savers did not have separate rooms and buildings? No. I'm still doing my best to respectfully debate other points with you.

Huh? All I said was that I was never at Reef Savers.

 

[StevenPro]

No one is perfect and I think cracker2 either made an honest mistake OR just failed to fully articulate what he/she meant by saying that. Considering the exceptionally level of knowledge and intelligence in the rest of his/her comments, I think it fair to forgive this one vague or incorrect statement. He/she has since clarified the point (see above posts by Craker2).

Once is an honest mistake. Four times now after having been corrected twice?

 

[sihaya]

Ok, well, in any case... my point is that I'm not going to write off dozens of intelligent, knowledgable posts for the sake of one poorly articulated statement that has since been clarified.

 

[sihaya]

Once is an honest mistake. Four times now after having been corrected twice?

Steven, I have all the confidence in the world that you are an exceptionally intelligent man and a skillful debater. But seeing you harp on this bit of nuance makes me wonder if you're not out of ideas at this point (at least temporarily).

 

[Anonymous]

Steven, I do not believe that your are really this calloused about endanged corals and saving the reef.
Isn't that what the hobby is all about?

Buying aquacultured corals to save the reef, growing coral fragments to save the reef, etc.

I do not believe that you are this calloused about protecting our natural resources either.

If this story was about collecting hundreds of highly endanged orchids in Montana, taking them to a plant nursery, then going to Puerto Rico and leaving no one to take care of them, you would be outraged.

If you heard that someone caught hundreds of polar bears, took them to a pet warehouse, then walked away, you would be outraged.

If you heard that the Department of Commerce gave those people permits to do that, did not check out their stories before they gave them the permits, you would be outraged.

 

[sihaya]

Steven is a good guy. Of course he would be. In fact, I'd venture a guess that if this involved anyone else, he'd be outraged by this too.

 

[StevenPro]

Actually, I have heard of a lot of absolutely awful stories about the government. Nothing would surprise me.

On a related note, Sara, have you discovered what ultimately happened to these corals?

 

[sihaya]

On a related note, Sara, have you discovered what ultimately happened to these corals?

From the documents... it looks like that whatever was left of them (whatever had not died before or shortly after being recovered) was distributed between eligible interested researchers.

 

[Anonymous]

OK, at this point, I totally need a synopsis! From both sides?

EB got a permit for rare and endangered coral, got the permit, got the corals, put them in a wholesaler facility, they were mixed together, some died, then the government took back the permit and said they wanted the corals returned? But, the corals couldn't be returned because they were dead or contaminated with non native species?