The NI Vavilov Research Institute of Plant Industry (VIR) has
responded in
some detail to the report of the Russian Academy of Sciences Expert
Commission appointed by the Russian Ministry of Economic Development to
look into the state of Pavlovsk Experiment Station. The response makes
many points and asks many questions, in between heaping fulsome praise on
the commission and its members. Among the most salient:
Why did the experts visit incognito and not engage the curators at
the Station? VIR considers this a breach of scientific ethics. The VIR
points out that it would be very difficult to find their way about and to
locate the various collections. Fortunately the group ran into M.
Lebedev, a head of the research nursery and private entrepreneur, who
was able to guide them round at least part of the Stations 500 hectares.
Why did the expert group include V.A. Dragavtsev the former head of
the VIR? The VIR ays that Dragavtsev is now widely known in Russian
scientific circles for his obsession to change the VIR directorate.
Why did the group not include a horticulturalist? Although it
included biochemists, lecturers and the director of a botanical garden,
the group contained no expertise specifically related to the crops at
the Station.
Why did the Expert Commission release its report in a press
conference? No staff were involved in the broadcast, which was one-sided.
VIR says that the Expert Commission gave the impression that the real
threat to the collections was not the proposed housing development but
the existing management of Pavlovsk which is protesting the
destruction.
Theres more (of course) and the latter part of VIRs response focuses on
the Expert Commissions proposed solution: change VIRs management and
then move the whole Institute (including Pavlovsk and 7 other stations)
from the Russian Academy of Agricultural Sciences into the Russian
Academy of Sciences. On the face of it this does rather seem like the
Russian Academy of Sciences is taking to heart sage advice about never
letting a good crisis go to waste. At this point VIRs response becomes a
bit muddled, and who can blame them? They point out that the RAS has no
idea of the costs or difficulties of managing the collections, and allude
to the RASs own financial problems and institute scientists striking and
demonstrating for budget increases. The VIR has its own set of
funny numbers too.
[D]o the highly respected experts know that an average cost of
collection, maintenance and preservation of one accession in a field
genebank makes around 700 Euros (Smith & Livingston, 1997), while an
average monthly salary of a curator does not reach 10 thousand Rubles
(239 Euros).
In the end the entire story is beginning to resemble a giant turf
war with too many players, shifting alliances and no clear outcome in
sight yet. VIR points out that another expert group, this one under the
Ministry of Agriculture, was at Pavlovsk on 23-24 September.
We do hope, results of this audit will be more objective and
professional, [and] will provide a real picture about [the] importance
and value of the fruit and berry crop collection.
But in case it doesnt
VIR reserves all rights to assemble a foreign commission consisting
of experts in the sphere of plant genetic resources, who understand what
preservation of a great amount of collection accessions in the field
genebank means, considering the fact the collection is being preserved
not only at Pavlovsk experiment station, but also at other 7 stations,
and what are the true causes of improper care of these
accessions.
Whose experts will prevail?
[NAFEX] Inspections at Pavlovsk,
Betty Mayfield, 10/26/2010