> Unclear to me what this has to do with doctors/scientists in general in your first contribution > ... Cox wrote in his [1996] memo. "I felt that this tree's b

> Unclear to me what this has to do with doctors/scientists in general in your first contribution > ... Cox wrote in his [1996] memo. "I felt that this tree's best purpose would be to serve scientific and educational programs." Yes, your quote points out that Cox made the decision. But this is where you and I disagree deeply: > Intensive study of the bristlecone was begun in the 1950s by scientist Edmund Schulman. In 1958, he announced in National Geographic the discovery of Methuselah Walk...the oldest of Schulman's trees had been alive at least 4,600 years, he reckoned. Then of course later: > In 1964, Currey was zeroing in on trees that seemed to be nearly as old as their California relatives. One in particular, which he called WPN-114, seemed to be very old indeed. A thorough reading would show that Currey knew that this tree was extremely ancient; and likely why he was keen to get readings from it. Which is of course also why this tree would serve a scientific purpose; but it's not at all clear that even for that time, cutting down the tree was necessary nor desirable to achieve this goal. > When this student and his associate came upon the bristlecones at the timberline, they began to take core samples from several trees, discovering one to be over 4,000 years old! Needless to say they were excited, and at some point, their only coring tool broke. The end of the field season was nearing. In other words, our geologist is being given a free pass for chopping down what he certainly knew was a very ancient and long-lived organism; simply for his PhD and because they didn't want to wait another year.