Advertisement

Asian Bioethics Review

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 141–145 | Cite as

Re: Asian Elephant Conservation: Too Elephantocentric? Towards a Biocultural Approach of Conservation—Response to Duffillot: a Long Road Ahead

  • Nicolas LainéEmail author
  • Serge Morand
Commentary

What is sometimes ungrateful about the anthropologist’s profession (or other scientific work, in particular from the social sciences) is the delay between data collection in the field and effective publication in an international peer-reviewed journal, after double-blind peer review, an often lengthy process guaranteeing scientific validity. This delay is especially grating in a fast-paced world of mass communication and social media with promotional campaigns on which many conservation NGOs and professionals depend. Mr Duffillot’s comments to the article partly reflect this asymmetric temporality and the friction that sometimes appears between social science research (and its long-term ecological studies guarantying the reliability of their findings) and the world of conservation professionals that rely on immediate valuations by donors (Duffy 2015).

While the data and their analysis published in ABR at the end of 2018 are based on a survey conducted in Laos in 2015 (as clearly...

Notes

References

  1. Barbault, R. 1997. Biodiversité. Introduction à la biologie de la conservation. Paris: Hachette.Google Scholar
  2. Barua, Maan. 2017. Nonhuman labour, encounter value, spectacular accumulation: the geographies of a lively commodity. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 42: 274–288.  https://doi.org/10.1111/tran.12170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bonneuil, C., and J.-B. Fressoz. 2017. The shock of the Anthropocene: the earth, history and us. London: Verso book.Google Scholar
  4. Brunois-Pasina, Florence, and S. Krief. 2017. Interspécifité du pharmakôn dans le parc de Kibale (Ouganda): savoirs partagés, échanges, imités ou empruntés entre humains et chumpanzés. Cahiers dAnthropologie Sociale 14: 112–135.Google Scholar
  5. Crawley, J.A.H., M. Lahdenpera, M.W. Seltmann, W. Htut, H.H. Aung, K. Nyein, et al. 2019. Investigating changes within the handling system of the largest semi-captive population of Asian elephants. PLoS One 14 (1): e0209701.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0209701 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Descola, Philippe. 2005. Par-delà Nature et Culture. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
  7. Descola, Philippe, and Gílsí Palsson, eds. 1996. Nature and society: anthropological perspectives. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Duffy, Rosaleen. 2015. Nature-based tourism and neoliberalism: concealing contradictions. Tourism Geographies 17 (4): 529–543.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14616688.2015.1053972.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dwyer, Peter D. 1996. The invention of nature. In Redefining nature: ecology, culture and domestication, edited by Roy Ellen and K. Fukui, 157–186. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  10. Ellen, Roy, and K. Fukui, eds. 1996. Redefining nature: ecology, culture and domestication. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  11. Hobsbawm, Eric, and Terence Ranger, eds. 1983. The invention of tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Lainé, Nicolas. 2014. Vivre et travailler avec les éléphants: une option durable pour la protection et la conservation de l’espèce: enquête sur les relations entre les Khamti et les éléphants dans le nord-est Indien. PhD dissertation, Paris-West University.Google Scholar
  13. Lainé, Nicolas. 2015. Isoler pour mieux conserver? Enjeux et paradoxes autour de la conservation des éléphants dans l’Inde contemporaine. Écologie et Politique 50: 147–162.  https://doi.org/10.3917/ecopo.050.0147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lainé, Nicolas. 2018a. Elephant tuberculosis as a reverse zoonosis. Postcolonial scenes of compassion, conservation and public health in Laos and France. Medecine Anthropology Theory 5 (3): 157–176.  https://doi.org/10.17157/mat.5.3.379.Google Scholar
  15. Lainé, Nicolas. 2018b. Asian elephants conservation: too elephantocentric? Towards a biocultural approach of conservation. Asian Bioethics Review 10 (4): 279–293.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-018-0070-z.Google Scholar
  16. Lainé, Nicolas. Forthcoming. Automédication animale et pharmacopée locale Humains, éléphants et plantes au Laos. Revue d’Ethnoécologie.Google Scholar
  17. Morand, Serge, and Claire Lajaunie. 2019. Linking biodiversity with health and wellbeing: consequences of scientific pluralism for ethics, values and responsibilities. Asian Bioethics Review 11 (2).  https://doi.org/10.1007/s41649-019-00076-4.
  18. Purdy, Jerediah. 2015. After nature. A politics for the Anthropocene. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Roué, Marie. 2003. Ong, peuples autochtones et savoirs locaux: enjeux de pouvoir dans le champ de la biodiversité. Revue Internationale des Sciences Sociales 178: 597–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Vientiane Times. 2018. Thirteen elephants knocking on Heaven’s Door. Vientiane Times, 28 February 2018.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© National University of Singapore and Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratoire d’anthropologie socialeCollège de FranceParisFrance
  2. 2.Institut de Recherche sur l’Asie du Sud-Est Contemporaine (IRASEC, Research Institute on Contemporary Southeast Asia)BangkokThailand
  3. 3.Institut des Sciences de l’Évolution de Montpellier (ISEM, Institute of Evolution Sciences of Montpellier), Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS, French National Centre for Scientific Research), Animal, Santé, Territoires, Risques et Ecosystèmes (ASTRE), Centre de Coopération Internationale en Recherche Agronomique pour le Développement (CIRAD)Université de MontpellierMontpellierFrance
  4. 4.Faculty of Veterinary MedicineKasetsart UniversityBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations