Relations with scientific world and projects

Experience of the case study under the Project:

Under the present Project active engagement of the local scientific community has been either:

  1. -non-existent for reforestation and restoration: since it’s start in 2006 the project contacted local research institutions in order to collaborate on scientific approaches to reforestation, planting protocols and other aspects of ecosystem restoration under the Project, with no interest from these institutions been shown; or

  2. -unfortunate: a short period of cooperation with a local scientific institution on geology issues ended in advertising of a part of the Project as a public tourist destination which is completely contrary to the explicit objectives of the Project; or

  3. -rights’ abusive : expeditions of different kinds entering into the area of the Project without notice or permission, breaking property rights and collecting data for their own needs, contrary to the Project’s objectives; but

  4. -the above deplorable experiences were complemented by some promising projects by personal interested contacts (see below) on aspects that require long-term monitoring and involvement, but not sporadic research resulting in an article; with

  5. -some interest by the international reforestation community for achievements in reforestation/restoration, in particular by social sciences on private land conservation , and under the coming UN decade of ecosystem restoration (2021-2030); and

  6. -history literature and friends helped assessment of the level of ecosystem degradation of the region and the valley.


Further assessment of modern science of live Nature led to the conclusion that science would not be actively helpful for reforestation or Nature protection. This conclusion has been corroborated by:

  1. Proliferation of fake and “adjusted” research data; race for publications over professional involvement by modern science; mismanagement of objectives of research; changes in societal effects of produced data; placement of science above any judgement thus compromising its responsibility towards the objects of research; ever increasing infiltration of post-truth into the scientific world; obsession with innovations, abandoning fundamental knowledge;

Systematic fraud in science.pdf ; In some countries - up to 90%.pdf ; EU regulations on post-truth

  1. Logical empiricism has enslaved ethics to science = “We do not know what the world is, but we can explain what the science of the world is”. Explanations are no longer tolerable, science is only the result of experience.

  2. Modern science has a reduced level of responsibility, it justifies a lot by itself.

  3. Modern science is seldom interested in private nature protection, even though private landowners are eager to provide long-term care, so needed for successful reforestation and nature recovery, Science Knowing But Not Doing.pdf  .

  4. Experimental science (major modern trend) tends to be statistical ("There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics”). Little scientific certitude is left.

  5. Modern, mainly experimental, science is reductionist and acts on the basis of sampling of Nature and imposing its dictatorship.                                                                 To move research from quantity to quality.pdf


  1. Modern science is in particular tough on wildlife: research is invasive and painful, using methods involving sedation of animals, radio collars or implants; an average of 1 out of 10 animals die in the procedure, in ungulates the figure is higher; those who do not die are quite often disoriented and vulnerable, the process can be cruel to animals; collars do not fall at times and kill the animal in a long and painful way; animals with collars are less efficient in hunting, the weight of the collar allowed being 10% of the weight of the animal; many countries do not allow the use of this type of torturing methods of research.                                                                                                    Long-term side-effects of abdominal implants.pdf

  2. Wildlife studies open ways to the previously undisturbed wildlife.

  3. “In putting conservation into practice, we often cause great suffering to animals”, Marc Bekoff.

                                                                                                              

The Lessons learned for the Project are:

  1. the Project cannot count on active help of current scientist with restoration and reforestation, or helping Nature;

  2. personal research and becoming polymaths, relying on own experience and studies, and cooperating practitioners, own learning, learning from nature, finding own partners the main being Nature, registering own lessons, is a must for success of the Project;

  3. the lack of interest of researchers in the present private ecosystem restoration Project can be used for maintaining its independence and has not prevented high survival rate in reforestation ;

  4. reductionist sampling science often does provide the right answer;

  5. reductionist experimental science hampers restoration efforts at ecosystem level, which requires a holistic base;

  6. clear difference shall be made between  experimental and observational/learning from Nature approaches, with  clear preference for the second;

  7. research can be effectively done by Nature practitioners, foresters or landowners, in particular by constantly observing nature and valuation of non-classified events and one-time observations, without engaging into simplistic lies of statistics and ensuring holistic caring approach;

  8. in the valley of the Project the level of degradation defies restoration science, it’s almost impossible to imagine the original natural path of the ecosystem.

  9. live Nature does not deserve to be treated like a mere object of scientific research, any piece of life has the right to be free from experiments;

  10. ethics shall prevail over science;

  11. for the sake of the Project and for the understanding of the laws of Nature fundamental sciences and theories shall be re-visited;

  12. we shall avoid “citizens science”, it revealed to be dangerous for nature; and finally

  13. the Project opted out from looking for active external scientific help.

“In nature there is a constant dialogue,

an exchange of information, and our task is to learn

to understand the language of nature, and not to consider

it as a dumb object of exploitation”

Galina Shatalova, Russian doctor

So, the Objectives are:

  1. Protect nature and wildlife from modern science, by minimising or preventing any science-induced stress ;

  2. Formulate humane science, respectful of plants and animals, for whom research could be conducted;

  Improve knowledge and understanding of how to help the land and wildlife to cope with changes and to survive decently ;

  1. Recognise and use the uniqueness of the location for glaciological research (because of its proximity to the ice field) and atmospheric monitoring, as well as other potential studies of inert matter;

  2. Collect enough personal knowledge to make the Project progressing;

  3. Science for Nature, not nature for science.

Trip financed by CIEP, National Geographic and Patagonia:

“in the habitat I am exploring the human is not welcome.

How can I prevent people from going here and destroy everything?”

And, the Rules are:

  1. Any research or study shall be conducted under formal, explicit and signed agreement with the Project. This agreement will specify and detail legal aspects such as conditions of use, eventual patents, any resulting publication or finding, aspects of intellectual property, and any other legal issues as the case may be; a sample agreement can be provided.

  2. Any research or study shall reply to the question: “What would it give to the land?”. The “Why?” of the research is crucial, research is justified only if it produces clear benefits to the piece of Nature it affects.

  3. The work would be done in a private area, which is not covered by the same legal settings as public areas.

  4. All findings of any nature shall be first published free of charge on the Project’s website.

  5. Any resulting publication shall explicitly indicate where the research was conducted.

  6. Priority will be given to non-innovative, long-term monitoring studies.

  7. The application shall indicate to what happened to the previously produced knowledge by the applicant.

  8. No invasive or intrusive research of live matter, wildlife in particular, is authorised by the Project;

  9. Results of invasive wildlife research are not used by the Project, they are false anyway (method vs. result).

  10. Only research method authorised - observation, learn from nature, preferential use of one-time non classified observations, single observations are considered as valuable.

  11. Under no circumstances and at no time any type of scientific tourism activity can be developed within the territory of the Project or facilitated by the Project.

  12. No paths shall be opened for research - worldwide experience shows that research in nature opens damaging access to endangered and other species.

  13. No research that could lead to mass wild plants or fruits collection would be authorised.

  14. Protocols for seed collection for reforestation shall be designed for an ethical and harmless collection.

  15. In no case and under no circumstances any GPS route within the Project can be published on any shared web platforms (2 legal cases against such publications filed by the Project).

  16. Preferential use of science with macro results, problems are global.


Example of research which did not observe the rules of seeking prior agreement of the Project, for publications and of the right to the image : Moraine-dammed lake failures in Patagonia (2014) . It also affected the effectiveness of monitoring of a sensitive area and therefore is subject to legal complaint.

Active Nature-friendly projects on abiotic factors :

I.  The Geodesy and Geodynamics Group at Ohio State University in the USA has been using GPS geodesy to measure crustal displacements in Chilean Patagonia since 1994. Their partners in this project include the Instituto Geográfico Militar de Chile, the Universidad de Concepción, and the University of Memphis which works mostly in Argentine Patagonia with local partners. The main focus of this geophysical project is to infer present and past changes in ice mass within the Patagonian Icefields and so study climate change over a range of timescales. Contemporary ice mass changes driven by modern climate change produce instantaneous elastic deformation of the solid earth, and by measuring this 'elastic rebound' they can, in effect, weigh the ice sheets. This investigation is pursued using a limited number of continuously operating GPS stations, such as that in Valle Leones, and larger numbers of survey GPS stations visited perhaps once every three years for a few days at a time.  On the western side of the Patagonian ice fields much of the fieldwork is performed using boats. The research group performs similar climate change/crustal motion research in Greenland and Antarctica.

It’s one of more than a dozen marks in Chilean Patagonia that are measured by IGM. They show that all the stations close to the ice are moving upwards. It is believed that this is the sign of solid earth 'rebounding' as ice loads decrease.

Projects:

Terminated project:

In cooperation with Chilean universities: compilation of elements for the description of ecosystem restoration and/or conservation activities, including the assessment of the progress of these activities:  works of interns.

Project’s own research:

  1. IV. Scientific aspects of reforestation and ecosystem restoration.

  2. V. Monitoring  of climatic conditions in the valley: weather station of the project. Important for monitoring of weather conditions for reforestation and tree growth.

  3. VI. Testing heavy metals and other pollutants in the waters within the area.

  4. VII. Monitoring of living conditions of wildlife with sensor cameras, marks studies and scanners (bat scanner, for example).

  5. VIII. Scientific expeditions in the area : in Publications.

  1. II. Monitoring of presence of persistent organic pollutants (POPs) in the air: Information on POPs. Booklet on POPs:  UNEP-POPS-PAWA-GUID-RIDDING.En.pdf. With climate change POPs are being released from melting glaciers. The POPs sampler of the Project is one of several deployed in the Baker basin under the EULA-Chile (Concepcion) research project. Part of a broader programme including Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador and Peru.

  2. III. Studies of tourism impact, counting tourists accessing the national park, data transmitted to Conaf.

01.2018 - April 2019

“Nature is the source of all true knowledge. It has its own logic, its own laws. It has no effect without cause,

and no invention without necessity”, Leonardo da Vinci


  1. The easiest and least expensive expedition would be to evaluate the biodiversity of species whose specimens are stored in museums. Samples that have not been described were collected between a few months ago and 140 years ago. It takes an average of 9 years for a specimen to be described and published.


Great comic re: science - Rat Park


It is necessary to preserve the information, not to dig or unearth, or to dissect. That's how we preserve cultures and nature - belief of the peoples of Altai.


"... locking himself in a narrow specialty, which avoids the lively and multi-stream course of life and develops in its possessor an indifferent and even contemptuous attitude to everything that lies outside his area. Under the influence of all this, interest in the past and faith in future are lost ”, D.A. Rovinsky, Russian lawyer, XIX century.


  1. The film "Ocean" was shown in a European country, it was made by oceanologists and was meant to show the beauty of oceans and endangered fish species in order to protect them. The day after the projection people started asking in their fish shops why they did not sell the fish shown in the film.


  1. “Culture in its deepest essence ... is a greatest failure. Philosophy and science are failures in the creative knowledge of the truth ... "N. Berdyaev, Russian-French philosopher and writer.

Data of 2018: the ground is rising very fast: 19.4 mm per year !

This rapid rise is due to ice loss. The weight of the ice is decreasing and the ground is rising in response. The GPS antenna and the land are also moving north at 13.5 mm/year and east at 4.9 mm/year.  The station moves up and down over the course of the year, primarily due to the varying weight of snow and water. That annual change is about 12 mm from high to low, with the lowest period occurring in November and December.

Bear poop

Animal excrements studies - a non-invasive form of investigation, but only if found on a walking trail for people

And Project’s development of issues of practical philosophy :

  1. What is science?

  2. Legal science, including laws of nature and legal protection from science.

  3. Learning intelligence of other species, the intelligence of Nature, plants and animals.

  4. Quantum base and principles in Nature restoration and healing.


For scientific approach to restoration see Restoration and Lessons learned.

“Ignorance should be classified as one of the most immoral phenomena”, Ilya Metchnikov, Russian / French biologist.

He who would study organic existence,

First drives out the soul with rigid persistence;

Then the parts in his hand he may hold and class,

But the spiritual link is lost, alas!

                Mephistopheles, “Faust”, Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe.

     PHOTOS