Memorandum submitted by Dr Janet Bradford-Grieve
My name is Dr Janet Bradford-Grieve. I am a
retired scientist who is working in an emeritus position at the
National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), Wellington,
New Zealand. My research career has had two threads: biological
oceanography (ecosystem functioning) and systematics and taxonomy
of calanoid copepod Crustacea. It is on the latter subject I am
now concentrating.
My observation is that in the UK, New Zealand
and many other countries the situation is somewhat similar, moderated
by population levels.
I recently completed a voyage aboard the German
research vessel "Polarstern" in the Atlantic under the
banner of the "Census of Marine Zooplankton". There
was an international group of 30 researchers aboard. The young
ones were mainly contributing to the genetic part of the work
although there were three students and their supervisors there.
But it was also noticeable that three of the experts were retired
or about to retire. None of the genetic work would make any sense
at the species level without the input of accurate identifications.
Thus, relatively well funded genetics projects are already limited
by the available systematics and taxonomic expertise.
The number of full time equivalents (FTE) in
marine invertebrate systematics and taxonomy at NIWA has declined
from 6 to 2.3 between 1995-96 and 2007-08 and the program was
recently funded for the next 12 years without any undertaking
to compensate for inflation! These 2.3 FTEs are spread over many
more people so that, in order to keep professional staff employed,
technical contracts have to be obtained. Needless to say NIWA
is finding it increasingly difficult to retain young talented
systematists as they cannot see their careers advancing in the
New Zealand setting, while having to provide increasingly more
technical identification services.
In New Zealand, Dr Dennis Gordon (also of NIWA)
estimates there is a total of 29 marine taxonomists in Universities,
Museums and research institutes who share 6.5 FTEs. This is the
lowest capacity since World War II.
This decline in FTEs has occurred in a setting
where:
1.
The current New Zealand Government's science agenda
is almost completely driven by RS&T in the service of the
economy. Evidence of this can be found in the "New Zealand
Research Agenda discussion document" for which input is due
to the Ministry of Research Science and Technology by the end
of January 2008. http://www.morst.govt.nz/Documents/consultations/NZRA-discussion-document.pdf
The only word that you will find in this document
that relates to the subject of systematics and taxonomy is "biodiversity".
The context of these references is in such vague terms as to provide
no guidance to funding organisations.
2.
The public service has so changed the definition
of different types of research since the Government reforms of
the late 1980/1990s that it is really difficult to track what
has happened with time. Also the New Zealand public service since
the reforms has largely lost its public service ethic so we can
not rely on the Government of the day being fully informed about
the state of affairs ("Voltaire's Bastards" come to
mind!).
3.
Politicians (and their advisers in the public service)
are more concerned to put "spin" around everything they
do such that I am convinced they do not realise, themselves, what
is happening.
4.
There is increasing attention to resources going
to databases and collections, communication with "endusers"
and the public such that that actual systematics and taxonomic
research is fast disappearing.
The UK has been a great leader in the past and
still plays a very important international role. I also think
systematics in every country should play an international role.
There is an unconscious tendency for new workers to enter the
field internationally, by filling gaps that have been generated
by retirements or historical neglect. My impression is that talk
of identifying priority areas is a red herring to cover up that
fact that Governments generally have no intention of improving
the resources and is a sign that the public service wants to micromanage.
Ideally, countries would be contributing each
according to their ability (approximately population related),
thus pulling their weight internationally and being a resource
for other countries where a particular specialty is absent. This
sharing of the load is particularly important where we are faced
with biosecurity, disease, resource and conservation problems.
Unfortunately, for this to happen, someone would have to take
the lead internationally.
The final problem that professional systematists
and taxonomists face is the belittling of their expertise. There
is a widespread belief that "identification" equals
"systematics and taxonomy" without recognising the source
of the identification expertise they value and what has to be
done to support this expertise.
30 January 2007
| 
