Response to 'Replies to Fry et al. (Toxicon 2012, 60/4, 434-448). Part A. Analyses of squamate reptile oral glands and their products: A call for caution in formal assignment of terminology designating biological function'

摘要

We agree that the definition of “venom” has wide-reaching secondary consequences. Acknowledgement of the fact that many snakes previously considered “non-venomous” are in fact venomous may indeed alter the general public's attitude towards them. We have often been presented, by amateur and professional herpetologists alike, with the argument that the publication of data supporting the classification of these snakes as “venomous” may affect legislation and public opinion. Whilst we acknowledge this possibility, we reject it as justification for withholding our evidence or altering our interpretation of it. We strongly believe it is the duty of scientists to report the evidence their research uncovers along with a balanced interpretation of this evidence. Whilst it is undeniably true that interpretations of evidence may differ and regrettably true that some interpretations may be unpopular and misunderstood, we do not believe that these latter possibilities should deter researchers from publication. We are aware that the presentation of new evidence and the classification of additional species as “venomous” may have legislative consequences, particularly when this classification is misunderstood to mean “dangerous to humans”.