No Good Deed....

Look, I know that the curators at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science are genuinely appreciative of the donation of my insect collection. I am reasonably certain most professional entomologists also applaud my gift to the scientific community. Unfortunately, Uncle Sam could pretty much care less, thanks to changes in the tax laws, and that fact has me incensed.

Packing up© Denver Museum of Nature and Science

I am a writer, and make an income that barely exceeds the poverty line most years. So, my wife and I file a joint income tax return. We have never itemized, as the Standard Deduction exceeds what we spend in charitable donations. Meanwhile, if you itemize your deductions, you can exceed the Standard Deduction, but only to a certain point (half of your Adjusted Gross Income, I believe).

The hardware alone in which my collection was stored, amounts to more than $13,000. This covers three storage cabinets, the 116 drawers in those cabinets and beyond, the "unit trays" inside the drawers that keep specimens organized, and the pins on which the insects are mounted. I am not even including the fifteen Schmitt boxes I used for temporary storage, which conservatively totals $450.

Claiming a charitable donation of over $5,000 in this case requires an independent appraisal of the collection, and here is where I have to admit mea culpa. In my defense, the collection was in a spare bedroom surrounded by many other items, making it a real challenge for me to get to it, let alone an appraiser. Also, appraisers charge for their services, and I have not had a lot of money to spare for that kind of expense. It could still be done, at the museum, but because of tax changes on the horizon, it is becoming apparent that the exercise would likely be one of futility. Oh, obviously, doing the math, a $5,000 deduction is less than the Standard Deduction, so it is not an option to do this incrementally starting with our 2017 return.

Away they go© Denver Museum of Nature and Science

I was informed by a former tax preparer that beginning in 2018, the Standard Deduction for married couples filing jointly will nearly double to $24,000, though we will all lose our individual exemptions, so not as rosy as it seems. So, while an appraiser may or may not value my collection over that amount, would it be worth the cost of the appraisal to bother finding out? Not likely.

Part of the problem is that the IRS (Internal Revenue Service) uses only FMV (Fair Market Value) to assign value to donations. As you can imagine, animal specimens do not rank highly in that regard because so few species are in high demand in the marketplace. Yes, there is a flourishing consumer trade in preserved insect specimens, usually obtained through dealers, and mostly limited to tropical species from rainforests around the globe. Specimens like mine from temperate regions are rarely as glamorous in appearance, not nearly as large in size, and therefore not valued as much as gaudy "oh, my!" species. There is no catalog that covers all insect species with corresponding price tags.

Appraisers are then left to add value based on the physical condition of the specimen, whether it has valuable data denoting exactly where and when the specimen was collected, and by whom. If the specimen has been identified to species by a recognized authority, then that also adds a bit more value. It is still subjective in the eyes of IRS accountants, and even an exhaustive appraisal is no guarantee your deduction won't trigger an audit.

Arrival at the museum© Denver Museum of Nature and Science

So, here's the thing. I don't want another invitation to a dinner reception for donors to the museum. The pretentiousness of such events I abhor. I also don't want pity for how this has unfolded so tragically for me in the financial sense, though at this point I truly believe I would have benefited more by insuring my collection and then setting it on fire. I want you to be angry, angry at where our society is placing its monetary values. The only thing I am even half good at is writing, and that sure as hell has no value either, except in advertising and fiction.

Donation Day

This past Tuesday, June 27, I donated my insect collection, all 115 Cornell drawers and 13 Schmidt boxes, if I counted correctly. The recipient institution is the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. They made a good case when myself and several other members of the Mile High Bug Club toured their new state-of-the-art collections facility a couple years ago. Oddly, I did not have mixed emotions about the move. It was time.

Frank (left) and Jeff (right) happily departing with my insect collection

Jeff Stephenson, Collections Manager in the Zoology Department, and Dr. Frank Krell, Senior Curator of Entomology, came down to my home with a U-Haul van and we set to work loading it up. Much to my delight, they even took the cabinets the drawers were in, so that our spare bedroom is now much, much roomier.

Heidi never complained about my collection, in fact she has been very supportive, unlike some spouses or girlfriends of entomologists, so I have heard anyway. Still, it is a relief to have this burden lifted, like a proverbial albatross around one's neck. I did not have space to work on further organizing the specimens, and they were doing no one any good locked up in my home. Once integrated into the museum's collection, they will be available for loan to scientists researching different genera and species. They may eventually be imaged and put into a growing online database accessible to everyone, not just scientists. That pleases me greatly.

One does get a few perks when they make a donation of scientific specimens. There is some brief acclaim or notoriety when the museum makes public its acquisition of your material. This will take the form of a blog post and maybe a newsletter blurb sent to museum patrons and volunteers. Then there is the tax write-off. This will be interesting because the museum can only count specimens and give an overall description of the collection's condition, not an appraisal. Even that can take weeks if not months, understandably. Thankfully, the entomological community is full of people who have experience in such matters. Meanwhile, Heidi and I have not itemized, taking the Standard Deduction instead, so that will be another adventure, possibly worthy of another trip to a tax expert for our returns next year.

I did not donate the collection for any of those gratuities. I did it to further free myself from the label of "bug guy," and continue my growth as a writer and artist. I did it to continue downsizing my possessions, which become increasingly burdensome as one ages. Simplicity and travel take priority more and more, and I find myself wishing I had done this sooner. I'd rather visit friends and make new ones than collect more specimens. Some of my colleagues still reprimand me, if kindly, for failing to take specimens I have photographed in their habitat. Some discoveries can only be properly documented with a voucher: the creature itself.

I do wish that donating my collection would cure me of my "trophy mentality," the need to provide proof that my time spent afield is worth something, not just a "hobby" or trivial pursuit. I sometimes wonder whether a suntan is some people's proof of status that they can afford to vacation frequently, an almost literal badge of affluence.

When "citizen science" became a....thing, I found myself lamenting that volunteers were putting real scientists out of work. I still think that is true to a degree, but now there are platforms on the internet that allow people to make real, concrete contributions to scientific knowledge. Those databases need refinement to be sure, but it is a step in the right direction, and it is a wonderful tool in recruiting a new generation of scientists, and launching whole new careers for retired folks. I am proud to be a part of that community, whether I am considered an authority or not. It is a constant learning curve, and I am happy to help those behind me, as others ahead of me generously lend me a hand in return.

I am looking forward to the next chapter in my life, however it unfolds, and happy to conclude this one, which began seriously when I was about twelve years old. I heartily recommend the process of self-evaluation and charitable donation. It is a sign that you are a responsible, adult human being who can think beyond himself.

National Science Foundation Suspends Funding Support for Biological Collections

I try to avoid issue-related topics here, but this recent development could potentially undermine the foundation of what I do. Researching the subjects of this blog requires that I consult almost daily with personnel associated with entomology collections all over the country. It has just been announced that the primary source of funding for many of these holdings will not be accepting any new applications for fiscal year 2017. The following is meant to inform my readers of who the players are, and how to make your voices heard.

© Natural Science Collections Association (UK)

The Players

Here is a list of recurring acronyms that should prove helpful if you find yourself getting confused.

• NSF - National Science Foundation
• CSBR - Collections in Support of Biological Research. This is the NSF grant program being placed on "hiatus" by the NSF.
• BIO - Directorate for Biological Sciences, one administrative arm of NSF
• DBI - Biological Infrastructure, the funding component of the BIO
• STEM - Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math education
• AIBS - American Institute of Biological Sciences
• SPNHC - Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections
• NSCA - Natural Science Collections Alliance
• ECN - Entomological Collections Network
• ESA - Entomological Society of America

What will happen?

My sources tell me this is not an unusual event. National Science Foundation periodically evaluates programs to assess their efficacy and impact, and suspending new applications for funding is more or less standard procedure during such an "audit." However, there is the possibility that the outcome of an evaluation could be the reduction or elimination of a program. That is why it is imperative that stakeholders speak to the importance of biological collections, but do so effectively.

Meanwhile, according to Reed Beaman of the CSBR:

"In FY 2017, BIO plans to assess the effectiveness of current DBI programs towards the evolving needs of the biology community, which have become more complex, diverse, and centered on data storage, access, and analysis. Evaluating current programs, assessing where investments can make a difference in the long term resource needs, and developing a robust STEM pipeline will be a priority. BIO will use FY 2017 to reexamine the goals and objectives of many of DBI’s longstanding research resource and human resource programs. Emphasis will be placed on evaluation, impact, and scalability, to gauge where support from BIO makes a difference and can be leveraged. Several programs will be put on a biennial competition schedule during their assessment and evaluation. BIO expects this assessment to be complete in time to inform the FY 2018 budget."

© Natural Science Collections Association (UK)

Crafting constructive feedback

Should you be a member of an organization such as the ECN, ESA, SPNHC, or NSCA, please consult your officers and fellow members for how best to proceed so that a united front is presented. Individuals should consider the following suggestions from Dr. Michael Ivie, Montana State University:

:

"First, keep in mind that NSF's Federally mandated job is to support leading edge science. Comments like the one on the DBI Blog site that starts out about cultural patrimony will only contribute to the idea we are antiquated and no longer relevant to modern science. Patrimony and history, and wonderful specimens kept safe are not what is important here. Keep comments limited to the impact of the collections served by the CSBR program on innovative SCIENCE. Second, NSF supports non-Federal research. All comments are valuable, but community comments should be led by the scientists who are NSF targets. Third, do not lead with the self-serving. This program is about Infrastructure impact,not about how the program allows the collection itself to be better. Get people not associated with the collection to write and tell stories of how they use the collections. How the collection is critical to training STEM scientists, how the data (specimens) housed there contributed to innovative research findings and provided impactful benefit. Tell stories about how a collection improvement grant led to the discovery of something, anything. How many extra loans to projects supported by NSF were made, how many new species were discovered because of bringing backlogs into the available pool of infrastructure.

Every supporting letter from people outside the collection community is worth two from inside. That does not mean we don't write, and our groups don't lobby, but it does mean we need to reach out. We need to swamp this issue with positive examples of impact on NSF supported science areas. The project impacted does not need to be actually NSF funded, but within an area that NSF funds. Citing the NSF program areas that are impacted by this infrastructure is critical. Writing letters is only half the battle, writing smart letters is what wins."

Where to write

The NSF is accepting comments through only two avenues. One is through this e-mail address:
DBICSBRatNSF.GOV
Remember to replace "at" with "@" to properly send your correspondence.

The other means of communication is by leaving comments on the DBI blog.

© Norma Salcedo, image of Grice Marine Laboratory in Charleston, South Carolina

Watch this space for further developments. Meanwhile, please feel free to "share," mention, or steal this post, whatever it takes to get the word out. This obviously affects every kind of biological collection, so remember to alert botanists, herpetologists, mammologists, and pretty much every other "ologist" community. Thank you.

To Collect or Not to Collect

It has become fashionable in the last few decades to voice objection to the practice of collecting organisms, especially animals, and often certain types of animals like butterflies. Such righteous indignation is misdirected at best. Here is my personal assessment of this complex issue.

Reprimands from the public

When someone encounters you out in the field engaging in collecting, and scolds you for "killing butterflies" or bees, or whatever, you can defend yourself a number of ways. Gently remind them that if they drive a vehicle they are going to kill far more insects and other invertebrates in a year than you will collect in a lifetime. Ask it they apply pesticides to their lawn, yard, or garden. If they answer "yes," then again you can remind them they are killing far more insects than you are. Let them know that habitat destruction is the leading cause of extinctions, both local and global. You get the idea.

Comments from "citizen scientists"

Citizen scientists should understand the importance of scientific collections. If they do not, offer them a brief education to that end. The digital age has allowed people to make virtual collections through images, but seldom can a conclusive identification be made from a picture or two alone. An actual voucher specimen is needed to confirm the ID. These days, even gross morphology is often insufficient to reach a conclusion, and processing genetic material (DNA) is required. That doesn't happen without collecting. Scientific collections complement recordings in still images, audio, and video.

Student collections

Let's take a look now at who is making collections. Educational institutions that include the creation of an insect collection as a course requirement should be free to continue doing so, provided certain criteria are met. Students must be instructed on the proper techniques for preparing specimens. Data labels must be attached to each specimen. There must be a "chain of custody" in place resulting in the permanent disposition of student collections in a museum or other facility where they will remain useful in perpetuity.

Hobbyists and sellers

This category of collectors is much more difficult to defend. Again, it hinges on purpose. Collections are vital not only to scientific study, but for educators who use living and preserved specimens to create awareness and appreciation of those species by the general public. Scientists rarely have the time or inclination to make such presentations, but there are other people who are gifted at doing just that. Depriving them of a vital instrument in that mission is not in anyone's best interest.

Collections made for purposes of personal amusement, decoration, or commercial display are nearly impossible to justify, especially if specimens lack data, are improperly prepared, or otherwise cannot be repurposed for scientific or educational use. One significant factor that may possibly change that is the increasing business of "farming" invertebrates. Captive breeding now accounts for a sizeable percentage of specimens on the market for "hobbyists" and casual collectors. One should always inquire as to the original source of specimens being obtained through a vendor. This is for your own protection, too, lest you be subject to fines and criminal prosecution for illegal trading in specimens. Keep the paperwork.

Arguing for collections

Discussions about the ethics and importance of collections should not be invariably "defensive." It is the responsibility of those who understand the role of collections to advocate for them. The collections housed in public institutions are under increasing assault from within, by administrators who don't understand their value, or view collections as "dinosaurs" that are now a burden on the business of museums to "entertain" visitors and increase profits.

Much is at risk here if we fail to protect existing collections and foster better ones for the future. We stand to lose the next generation of scientists, for one thing. Biologists need to mentor high school students, even elementary students, and coach them in proper fundamentals of collecting, including the ethics. Many, many of my colleagues recount the early life experiences that led them into their scientific careers, and collecting insects is a recurring theme.

Collecting and you (and me)

Only you can decide whether collecting is an important activity for you, but please don't criticize those who do; certainly reserve judgment until you fully appreciate their motivation. Me? I have a collection of over 100 Cornell insect drawers. I have loaned many specimens to scientists who have identified specimens for me, resulting in many county and state records, and a handful of species new to science. When I moved into my wife's home, the "bugs" came, too, but there is not enough space to curate them properly. I have decided to deposit my specimens at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, where they have state-of-the-art facilities. That transaction will likely happen later this year.

Sources: Freedman, Jan. 2015. "Bring out your dead: How museum specimens can contribute to environmental sustainability," Museums & Heritage Advisor.
Kemp, Christopher. 2015. "Museums: The endangered dead," Nature.
Roston, Michael. 2015. "A Guide to Digitized Natural History Collections," New York Times.
Warren, Andrew. 2015. "Why We Still Collect Butterflies," The Conversation.
Yong, Ed. 2016. "Natural History Museums Are Teeming With Undiscovered Species," The Atlantic.