Zoo Biology 12:317-319 (1993)

EDITORIAL

Curators and Applied Science

Some of my scientific colleagues believe that every zoo should have a minimum of one scientist on its staff enabled to conduct research on some aspect of the collection. It would seem that support of research is not so much a matter of resources as it is of priorities, if the example of the Roger Williams Park Zoo in Providence, Rhode Island, is a fair indication. With about 30 employees and an annual budget of slightly over $1 million, this zoo nevertheless supports a full-time director of research and even awards small grants to outside scientists through an annual competition. Although Providence deserves our praise, it may not follow that the establishment of in-house research programs is universally practical. I do contend, however, that applying knowledge derived from scientific studies to the management of captive collections is a course deserving of a wider following.

During the U.S. presidential campaign in 1992, one candidate repeatedly claimed that the nation’s economic woes could be alleviated if only plans that repose on dusty shelves in the Congress were put to work. An analogy is found in zoo researchers who devote their energies to the study of animal biology and thus to the production of scientifically validated approaches to management. Unless this infor- mation is applied at the local level, we may wonder if zoos are getting the best return on their investment in research.

We should not be surprised to learn that long-standing practices may not a priori be in the best interests of the animals under our care. The systematic accumulation of knowledge about a particular taxon has a way of telling us how little of its biology we truly understand. Consider, for example, the common practice of fasting the larger bodied carnivores one day each week. The only published rationale, biologically speaking, that I have found for this custom is that the animals’ digestive systems need a rest periodically! Those attuned to the field literature are aware that carnivores often eat prodigious quantities at each ‘‘sitting’’-the equivalent of a human consuming a 15- or 20-pound steak-and do so somewhat opportunistically. That is, they may gorge on one day, then go entirely without food for two or three days at a stretch, and yet do quite well. Fasting carnivores on the seventh day is apparently a practice rooted in human convenience, perhaps an accommodation to having on hand a reduced staff on weekends.

It is puzzling, furthermore, that rearing by humans (hand-rearing) is still the preferred approach for maternally deprived mammalian offspring, despite several promising alternatives that have been described in the scientific literature. In a similar vein, a wealth of information on space requirements, social structure, assimilation of

0 1993 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

318 Lindburg

new individuals into established groups, exhibit design, styles of provisioning, and many other topics of relevance to keeping animals in captivity offers the prospect of improving our husbandry techniques.

Lest it appear that this broom sweeps too widely, I readily acknowledge the applications of science to the genetic management of collections. However, it is well to remember that much of this expertise came from outside zoos and did not have to contend with accumulations of in-house “know-how” in gaining acceptance. Day- to-day operational lore has a different history, one that has resulted in some highly valued experiences, to be sure, but also in some curious notions about animal biology.

Where science offers enlightenment, care must be taken in focusing its illumi- nating power. Zoos that are lacking in any kind of scientific expertise may fail to implement in ways that are safe and resourceful. In others the process often leads to a kind of competitive tension between animal managers and researchers, despite their holding many goals in common. In either situation I think zoos could benefit from having what I will call a Curator of Applied Science on staff.

The term “curator” comes from the Latin curare, meaning “to care for.” A curator, originally a clergyman, is typically defined as a manager or overseer. The term is appropriate for the task envisioned here. A Curator of Applied Science is an individual who is sufficiently cogent in the methods of science to be able to read the literature and to extract from it that which is locally applicable. This individual would be able to work with management in making constructive changes in the human- animal interaction. As overseer in scientific matters, he or she might function as liaison between the local zoo and the researcher from outside, be it an academician or a scientist from another zoo or aquarium. This is the individual who responds when the call comes to contribute survey data or to cooperate in multi-institutional pro- grams of data collection and sample procurement. Other closely allied functions can undoubtedly be added to tailor responsibilities to the local situation.

We must remember that the costs of well-equipped laboratories and of trained staff needed to conduct basic research in genetics or physiology are beyond the means of most zoos. In addition, the majority of scientists at work in zoos today are engaged in the development of new knowledge, whereas there is much work to be done that is diagnostic or consists of the routine monitoring of reproductive events. In the best of all worlds, two things should happen. One is for zoos to combine resources in establishing service centers where samples can be analyzed at an affordable rate. The second is to have a qualified, designated contact person who can insure that reliable responses are provided where the study population is pandemic in scope. A curator in matters of science would insure that institutions not having a research program of their own do have the potential for contributing in important ways to a corpus of relevant knowledge.

The position of Curator of Applied Science need not be limited to institutions lacking research programs, however. To paraphrase a bit, scientists are often without honor in their own zoo and may wish for someone who is better positioned than they are to see to the applications of their findings.

As editor of Zoo Biotogy, I often wonder how much of each issue of the journal is read by management staff. I would probably be disappointed to find out. Unfor- tunately, lack of time or lack of encouragement from the highest levels dictates that potentially useful information from the scientific literature goes unheeded. My ad-

Curators and Applied Science 319

vocacy means no slight to those individuals who are both curator and scientist. Nor should it be construed as devaluing basic research efforts by zoos and aquariums. My advocacy is for a scientific payoff from our support of research that goes beyond the accumulation of publications and attendant professional recognition. It is to insure that scientific findings get translated into action for the benefit of the captive effort.

Donald G. Lindburg Editor