Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Wed, 8 Mar 2000 13:34:36 -0500 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
I think it all depends on how you view it. A university names the new
library or gym after the person who provided the funds to build it. This is
usually viewed as a valid means of honoring and thanking the contributor,
rather than an outright cash purchase of notoriety. The idea of naming a
species after someone in return for cash could likewise be viewed as the
outright purchase of a taxon, which sounds a bit tacky, though not overly
horrific from my point of view (after all, there are thousands of new ones
available every year). Or - it could be viewed as justly honoring a person
who has made a significant contribution to research by way of financial
support. In any case, I believe the astronomers beat the biologists to it
on this one. I recall reading, some years ago - I don't remember where - of
the possibility of having a star named after you, in return for a sizeable
monetary contribution.
Paul M.
|
|
|