SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Last year, Australian bureaucrats facilitated the destruction of a priceless, irreplaceable, scientific collection of plant materials on loan to their country's scientists from France. Apparently the actual destruction was carried out by an "external contractor", but that in no way absolves the bureaucracy.
Jeanson had received a message from the director of the Queensland Herbarium in Australia that was abrupt to the point of being blunt. It told him that a package of 105 botanical specimens of Australian plants owned by the Jardin des Plantes – and gathered by an intrepid French botanist more than 200 years earlier – had been destroyed by Australian biosecurity officials.
To this day, Jeanson can't quite believe what happened, and nor can scientists and museum directors from around the world who have followed the story with horror.
The specimens were both priceless and irreplaceable. How could anyone, let alone government officials, incinerate such artefacts? It was simply beyond Jeanson's comprehension. It remains so, even after post-mortems and investigations conducted in both countries, by scientists and bureaucrats, after diplomats stepped in and compensation negotiations were undertaken.
The specimens destroyed were part of the catalog of the world's plants and were a part of a base for pharmacy, agriculture, and any kind of science based on plants.
Source : 'Would you burn the Mona Lisa if it was sent?': Our horror bureaucratic bungle
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Monday February 26 2018, @07:12PM (3 children)
Your own linked story at foreign policy.com calls the whole incident into question.
Customs seized and disposed of fresh cut green bamboo, a notoriously invasive plant.
Those were packed in different luggage than the flutes, which customs said they didn't touch.
So at best this is a he-said she-said story. Maybe read these links before you post them?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by canopic jug on Monday February 26 2018, @07:44PM (2 children)
From the update in the Foreign Policy article:
If he did have fresh bamboo, then he is quite an asshole. However, separate from that the flutes are gone [npr.org]. The two problems are not mutually exclusive.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by insanumingenium on Monday February 26 2018, @09:43PM (1 child)
Occam suggests that these flutes were mistaken for live bamboo, and therefore the musician denying the existence of live bamboo, customs denying the existence of flutes, and the confiscated flutes not being in luggage all make sense. Anecdotally, I can see where an overzealous goon could mistake a Ney [wikipedia.org] for (dried) bamboo.
(Score: 2) by canopic jug on Tuesday February 27 2018, @05:32AM
Yeah. That assessment makes sense, particularly after re-reading all four articles.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.