Who will actually use DNA barcoding and what will it cost?
Who will actually use DNA barcoding and what will it cost?
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/10635150600960079
复制
发表时间：
2006-01-01
影响因子：
6.5
通讯作者：
Will, Kipling
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cameron, Stephen;Rubinoff, Daniel;Will, Kipling
在Hebert et al.（2002）提出该术语之前使用的所有基于DNA的识别方法（例如，DeSalle和Birstein， 1996）都未能引起科学界的重大关注，也没有引起公众的任何关注之后，仅仅使用条形码这个词就可能是DNA条形码的吸引力的主要原因。这个术语本身是有内涵的。产品条形码是用结帐激光扫描的，事实上，“星际迷航三录仪”的图像，一种手持扫描仪，已经被条形码的支持者在演讲和论文中反复使用（Janzen, 2004; Smith, 2005）。Savolainen等人（2005）在《伦敦皇家学会哲学汇刊》的一期专刊上发表了一篇关于DNA条形码的介绍性论文，就用了这样一个暗示来开头。尽管对能够检测生物武器的扫描仪的需求无疑会在某种程度上导致便携式DNA扫描仪的发展（这是美国国土安全部科学技术理事会的一个明确目标），但是，绝对没有迹象表明，条形码的支持者作为这项研究的结果向公众推销的那种大规模识别用途，它们将是负担得起的或实用的。此外，“三录仪”和便携式DNA条形码之间的关键区别将是DNA组件。史波克先生只需要在外星人的大致方向上挥动他的三录仪就能知道它是什么，而现实世界的条形码条形码则需要实际处理该动物，从其身上取下组织，并将其加载到条形码中以获得身份。DNA条形码与样本有着内在的联系，因为样本必须被收集以进行DNA提取，无论是在目前的分子生物学实验室还是在未来的某个时候通过手持条形码。这个小细节清楚地说明了条形码能实现什么，不能实现什么。那么谁会使用DNA条形码呢？丹·简森（Dan Janzen）雄辩地论述了提高普通公众的生物素养的必要性，并充满激情地谈到，如果没有能力通过识别自然的内容来“阅读”自然，生物多样性注定会被低估，从而遭到破坏（见简森等人，2005，关于这一论点的全面发展）。有人想知道，在这个愿景中，便携式DNA条形码的位置是什么。大多数公众观察自然；他们不会通过从蝴蝶身上取下腿来取样，然后把它们扔到条形码上进行鉴定。野生动物保护部门花了很多精力试图让人们远离野生动物，当然也不处理或活体观察它们。便携式条形码的出现会导致野生动物主管部门彻底转变，鼓励公众批发处理野生动物吗？对于较小或更微妙的植物和动物（包括那些没有条形码的业余爱好者最难识别的植物和动物），被条形码“识别”可能是致命的。不仅仅是因为必须处理或采摘，而是因为必须进行解剖以获得组织样本。此外，这种条形码识别不能分享传统采集标本的好处，因为缺乏经验的公众成员可能会简单而短暂地好奇，而不倾向于保留每个“标本”作为严格的地方数据的凭证，以供将来研究或参考。尽管支持者建议用免费的鉴定来补偿新物种的代金券（Janzen, 2004），但我们只需要想想绝大多数人把他们可以回收的罐子扔在一边以获得退款。不便处理和……
It is likely that the mere use of the word barcode is responsible for much of the appeal surrounding DNA barcoding, after all DNA-based identification methods (eg, DeSalle and Birstein, 1996) used prior to Hebert et al.'s (2002) proposal of the term failed to ignite significant attention from the scientific community and none whatsoever from the general public. The term itself is loaded. Product barcodes are scanned using checkout lasers and indeed the image of the" Star Trek tricorder," a handheld scanner, has been used repeatedly by barcoding proponents in both presentations and papers (Janzen, 2004; Smith, 2005). Savolainen et al.(2005) use just such an allusion to commence their introductory pa-per of a special issue of Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London devoted to DNA barcoding. Although the need for scanners capable of detecting biological weapons will undoubtedly lead to the development of portable DNA scanners at some point (a stated objective of the US Department of Homeland Security, Directorate for Science and Technology), there is, however, absolutely no indication that they will be affordable or practical for the kinds of mass identification uses that barcoding proponents are selling to the general public as the outcome of this research. Further, a critical difference between a" tricorder" and a portable DNA barcoder would be the DNA component. Whereas Mr. Spock need only wave his tricorder in the general direction of an alien to be told what it is, real-world barcoders will need to actually handle that animal, remove tissue from it, and load it into the barcoder to get an identification. DNA barcoding is intrinsically linked to specimens as samples that must be collected for DNA extraction, be it in a molecular biology laboratory as at present or by a handheld barcoder at some point in the future. This small detail neatly circumscribes what barcoding can, and what it can't, achieve. Who then would use DNA barcoding? Dan Janzen has written eloquently and spoken passionately about the need to improve biological literacy amongst the general public and that without the ability to" read" nature by identifying its contents, biodiversity is doomed to be underappreciated and so destroyed (see Janzen et al., 2005, for full development of this argument). One wonders what the place for even a portable DNA barcoder is in this vision. The majority of the public observes nature; they don't sample it by removing the legs from butterflies and throwing them into a barcoder to get identifications. Wildlife protection authorities expend a lot of effort trying to keep people away from wildlife and certainly not handling or vivisecting them. Will the advent of a portable barcoder result in a complete turn around by wildlife authorities encouraging the wholesale handling of wildlife by the public? For smaller or more delicate plants and animals (which would include those most difficult for an interested amateur to identify without a barcode), being" identified" with a barcoder is likely to be fatal. Not simply due to the handling or picking necessarily, but due to the dissection necessary to get a tissue sample. Further, such barcode identifications will not share the benefits of traditionally collected specimens because an inexperienced member of the public is likely to be simply, and passingly curious, and not inclined to retain each" specimen" as a voucher with rigorous locality data for future study or reference. Although proponents suggest to compensate new species vouchers with free identifications (Janzen, 2004), one needs only think of the vast majority of people who toss aside cans they could recycle for a refund. The inconvenience of handling and …