Memorandum submitted by Mr Henry S. Barlow
Thank you for your invitation to submit my comments
on developments in taxonomy in the UK in recent years. I first
submitted comments to the House of Lords Select Committee on the
subject chaired by the late Lord Dainton in 1990.
Although neither a professional nor indeed a
practicing taxonomist, I have worked closely with distinguished
insect taxonomists, publishing their work, for over 30 years.
I have no hesitation in stating that taxonomy
in the UK, insofar as the Natural History Museum is concerned,
has suffered dramatically in recent years. The problems are writ
large in the saga to date of Darwin Centre Phase 2, referred to
in an article in Nature 447: 908 June 2007.
The primary failing, by Trustees and NHM management,
arose when documents submitted to the Trustees in 2001 estimated
that 4.6 km of standard storage space were required to house the
entomological and botanical collections in the new DC2 building.
The current design was accepted following a competition for architects,
based on the 2001 specifications. Inexplicably in 2004, the detailed
specification for the new building provided for only 3.4 km of
the same storage space. This discrepancy was neither explained
by management to the Trustees, nor picked up by the Trustees themselves.
As a result, the management has since the date when the final
design was approved, been vainly attempting to fit one quart's
worth into a pint pot. The "solution" appears to lie
in creating what was supposed to be a temporary arrangement, under
which part of the collections would be housed in the former Darwin
public gallery on the first floor as a permanent arrangement.
Nor is it clear where the library facilities, essential for taxonomic
research, are to be housed in the 10 years or so it will take
to put all the relevant literature online.
Lying behind this is the inexplicable decision
by the Trustees to demolish the old, and structurally sound Entomological
wing, allegedly on the grounds that it was a health and safety
hazard, without a proper Health & Safety report.
The demolition took place despite individual
personal appeals to the Trustees. The result is that a building
not fit for purpose for health & safety reasons but capable
of being remedied is being replaced by a very expensive new building
not fit for purpose due to lack of capacity.
Staff members with many years of experience
working with the collections who attempted to put forward constructive
suggestions were ridiculed, and they feared that their careers
in the NHM would be at risk if they attempted to raise such matters
publicly.
There can be little long-term hope for taxonomy
and systematics in the UK, so long as the country's premier taxonomic
institution is run in such a manner. The latest insult comes at
the end of an announcement of a Palaeonotology Seminar: "Thoughts
on the Past Present and Future of Natural History Museums"
on 24/1/08, which reads: "Perhaps the most difficult change
for natural history museums to cope with in the coming years,
however, will be the progressive loss of physical collections
as the institution's primary rationale." This suggests that
the collections are suddenly perceived as being almost irrelevant
for museum-based research and there is no strategy or even a desire
for building collections in the future. Have the lunatics now
taken over the asylum?
The ultimate responsibility for the NHM lies
with DCMS, singled out in an article in the Sunday Times of 13
January 2008 which quoted the former Chief Scientific Advisor
to the Government, Professor Sir David King. In this article he
was quoted as saying that he was dismayed at the lack of scientific
understanding of government departments, particularly citing DCMS
in this regard.
What constructive steps can now be taken, given
that the new structure of DC2 is complete? It is suggested that
as a first step, a formal decision should be taken to ensure that
at all times at least two places on the board of Trustees be reserved
for:
(a)
An individual respected by the scientific community
who has had at least 15-20 years' experience working on the NHM,
or comparable collections.
Such individuals should be proactive in constructively
questioning and probing management proposals, and ensuring that
research posts were only given in the NHM to individuals whose
work depended on the use of the NHM collections (as opposed to
work which could equally well be undertaken in any university
zoology department). If this were to be done effectively, there
is at least a chance that the decline in taxonomy, which is one
of the essential tasks of NHM, could be reversed, and with it
the so far inexorable slide towards extinction of qualified taxonomists
themselves.
If DCMS is unable to accept and act on this
suggestion, consideration must be given as to whether DCMS is
the appropriate government department to have responsibility for
the NHM's incomparable collection of 70 million specimens: a collection
which cries out for world heritage recognition.
In conclusion it is necessary to stress yet
again that the collections represent a unique cultural record
of the natural world. If taxonomy and systematics are to survive,
it is imperative that priority is given to their care and conservation.
22 January 2008
| 
