Memorandum submitted by the British Mycological
Society
BACKGROUND
The British Mycological Society is a learned
society established in 1896, and a registered charity; it is the
second largest society concerned with mycology in the world. The
aim of the Society is to promote all aspects of the study of fungi,
and it currently has a membership of 1246, including a wide range
of professional and amateur mycologists. It publishes three scientific
journals, the main one being Mycological Research (monthly;
Impact Factor 1.86; and is the world's second most-highly cited
journal in the field) and also has a symposium series.
SUMMARY
Fungal systematics in the UK is in a worse state
than at any time since the 1930s, and urgent action is needed
if the needs of industry, medicine, agriculture, conservation,
mycophagists, and amateur naturalists are to be met. The existing
institutional structure needs to be re-examined, and, in view
of a situation becoming increasingly critical through retirements,
it is suggested that an interdepartmental committee be established
to consider the issue as a matter of urgency. In particular it
should consider the proposals made here for: (1) a decentralized
National Mycological Institute be formed based on the existing
national institutions; and (2) a specialist postgraduate training
programme be established.
THE STATE
OF SYSTEMATICS
AND TAXONOMY
RESEARCH
1[27]. Systematic
and taxonomic work on fungi carried out in the UK is at its lowest
point since at least the 1930s. There has been a marked decline
in systematic posts and research in the UK over the last decade
as a result of restructuring of institutions, vacated positions
not being filled, and retirements. The number of full-time fungal
(including lichen) research systematists in the UK (excluding
curator positions and persons doing small numbers of identifications
for amateurs or as part of site surveys) is currently only 10
(including 3 lichenologists) across all institutions and universities.
There is only one fungal systematist in the entire UK university
system now (and he is due to retire in the next year). These figures
compare with at least 23 systematic research posts in mycology
in 1997. The result is that little systematic work on fungi now
takes place in the UK, and that the UK has ceased to be a major
contributor to systematics research on fungi. A major factor in
this is the lack of recognition of mycology as a discipline independent
from botany and microbiology, and a failure to recognize the huge
amount of work required to place fungal systematics on a secure
modern foundation.
2. Fungi are major component of biodiversity,
with some 12,000 species (including lichen-forming species) recognized
in the UK and additional discoveries being made continuously;
species new to science are repeatedly being found, including conspicuous
mushrooms as well as microscopic species. They also are: (1) valuable
as indicators of climate change, as reflected in extended periods
of mushroom-fruiting; (2) crucial but rarely appreciated components
of global carbon cycles and budgets (as sources and sinks), where
they are involved in the release of about ten times more carbon
than all human activities; (3) essential to the well-being to
existence of plants and numerous animals (invertebrates and vertebrates)
with which they form mutualistic symbioses; and (4) practical
bioindicators of air quality, habitat richness, and ecological
continuity. Lichens in particular are used in SSSI site assessment
and selection by the national conservation agencies. Important
ecological work involving fungi in the UK is currently funded
on an ad hoc basis, especially in relation to soil processes,
mycorrhizas and air pollution, but is limited by inadequate systematic
support.
3. There is currently no organized structure
for systematic research on fungi in the UK. Institutions change
policies and staffing without consultation and without the framework
of a national programme. With respect to the major governmental
institutions: (1) the former International Mycological Institute
(now part of CABI Bioscience) now has only three systematists
(two due to retire shortly), a figure reduced from 13 in the mid-1990s;
(2) the Natural History Museum in London has none (from 4-5 in
the 1980s-1990s); (3) the Royal Botanic Gardens 2 (from 3 in the
late 1980s); (4) the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh still has
two 2 (unchanged from the late 1980s but both are now lichenologists
and there is no mushroom specialist); and (5) the National Museum
of Wales, Cardiff has 1 (unchanged, and also a lichenologist).
With respect to world standing, the UK has gone from being one
of the foremost countries in the world on fungal systematics in
the 1980s-1990s, where it had leaders dealing with fungi from
mushrooms and microfungi to water moulds and lichens, to a minor
player today. User needs are not being met in the UK at this time.
There is little support from mycologists in post available for
many aspects of applied science that involve fungi. Amongst the
vital areas in need of an adequate level of fungal systematic
support are: plant diseases, forest diseases, forest health (mycorrhizas),
medical health, food safety, drug discovery, forensic science,
prohibited substances (hallucinogenic mushrooms), biological weapons,
ecosystem processes, conservation, and mushroom collectors and
eaters (and their local organizations). The UK now lacks leading
in-post specialists in the systematics of many groups of fungi
of major economic importance, including Aspergillus, Fusarium,
Penicillium, Pythium, and Trichoderma, as well as ones
of medical importance as human pathogens.
4. A central service for fungal identification,
backed by specialist systematists, is required. The UK has been
a key world player in supply of existing taxonomic information
on fungi through the databases and publications established by
the former International Mycological Institute, and while some
of these continue they are under-resourced and depend on 1-2 dedicated
staff soon to retire. However, databases and web-based systems
will not meet the needs of users alone. Specialist support is
required to deal with the numerous novel taxa to science still
being discovered and critical identifications. Specialist systematists
are also needed to provide specialist training for those involved
in government plant health, public health, and conservation services.
Funding of mycology nationally could best be achieved by the establishment
of a centrally managed and resourced, but decentralized, National
Mycological Institute. This could be based on the existing institutions
and collections, but with independent government funds and management.
The Society estimates that such a national institute would require
an annual staff and consumables budget of about £ 2.5 million
to provide a centre with an adequate range of specialists.
5. Most countries in Europe still have strong
fungal systematics research and teaching groups in the universities,
many continuing traditional morphotaxonomy alongside or integrated
with molecular phylogenetic approaches. Major museums generally
have 2-3 fungal (including lichen) systematist and are centrally
funded. The major world centre is now the Centraalbureau voor
Schimmelcultures in Utrecht which is funded almost entirely by
the Royal Academy of Sciences of The Netherlands and about 90
staff. In North America, the USDA support both the National Fungus
Collection at its Beltsville site and the main US collection of
living cultures at its Peoria laboratories (we understand that
the American Type Culture Collection which depends on sales now
has no fungal systematists). There used to be complementary appointments
made between the Dutch collection and the International Mycological
Institute, and that type of collaboration could perhaps be initiated
again if a new centre were established in the UK.
6. Molecular systematics has revolutionized
the understanding of the evolution of, and relationships between,
different fungal groups, and classification systems have been
radically revised as a result. Generic and species concepts have
also been extensively revised, as molecular data has shown many
not to comprise single biological entities, as previously assumed.
Whole-genome comparisons can be expected to yield exciting new
data pin-pointing genes involved in key functional processes;
about 40 fungi are now completely sequenced or scheduled to be
in the next year. The major breakthroughs in fungal molecular
phylogenetics have been achieved by international collaboration,
especially through the NSF-supported Assembling the Fungal Tree
of Life (AFTOL) initiative; the major output papers have 40-65
co-authors, including several based in the UK. However, molecular
approaches cannot proceed without a high level of whole-organism
systematic support. Without that collaboration and input, errors
in interpretation and misidentifications abound and call the integrity
of the work into question. It has been estimated that around 20-25
per cent of the fungal sequences in GenBank are based on wrongly
identified material, and GenBank itself has representatives of
not more than 15 per cent of all described fungus species; the
comparison of sequences with those in GenBank alone is thus not
an alternative to having material studied by a specialist. While
welcoming the Consortium on the Barcoding of Life (COBOL) movement
in endeavouring to obtain some sequence data from many more species,
because of the huge knowledge gap with so many undescribed fungal
species we do not see it as a panacea. Further, because of problems
in identification, it is essential that there are public repositories
for voucher specimens and cultures for material sequenced so that
identifications can be checked and experiments repeated or built-on.
At present, the living and dried reference collections in the
UK are not sufficiently well-supported to perform this task. As
a result UK researchers now often deposit vouchers in, or obtain
strains to use from, overseas collections. Alternatively, they
continue to hold strains in unsatisfactory conditions for long-term
storage in their own laboratories.
DATA COLLECTION,
MANAGEMENT, MAINTENANCE
AND DISSEMINATION
7. The former International Mycological
Institute became the world reference point for systematic mycological
information in the 1940s, and this has been continued by CABI
Bioscience using electronic databases. The centre produces the
Index of Fungi cataloguing all newly described fungi worldwide,
and the Index Fungorum database which now covers around
425,000 scientific names of fungi. This database is available
free on the worldwide web, and also now has links to original
pages of some cited older publications. This is a world service,
but has become inadequately resourced. It could be edited to a
much higher standard with respect to information on currently
accepted names and synonyms, which would make it even more valuable
to users. The British Mycological Society is responsible for a
national Fungal Records Database, which has inputs mainly from
amateur mycologists, and which co-operates with the UK National
Biodiversity Network (NBN). At present the data is predominantly
of macrofungi and mainly input and maintained by volunteers. Because
of potential problems with identifications, the records database
has to be used with caution by conservation agencies and others.
The British Lichen Society has an independent mapping scheme,
not yet fully integrated with the NBN. Local recording and survey
work on fungi in the UK is very patchy, mainly concerned with
larger fungi and lichens, and almost entirely carried out by amateurs.
8. The combined collections of CABI Bioscience,
the Natural History Museum London, and the Royal Botanic Gardens
Kew constitute the largest specimen reference resource of fungi
(including lichens) in the world, and also have the largest number
of type collections. Together these collections have about 1.6
million specimens; data on those of CABI Bioscience are all digitized
(ca 400,000 specimens) and current accessions and loans are now
being databased at the other two centres. The collections at the
Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh are also of international importance,
and there are extensive collections of national importance at
the National Museum of Wales Cardiff and the Manchester Museum
in particular. Small collections, mainly of lichens, are held
in numerous provincial museums, many in need of curation, verification,
and databasing. The London area collections are a part of the
world's heritage and merit central funding accordingly, as do
those in Edinburgh. Those in other museums are generally vouchers
for regional and local records and publications. These regional
and local collections need to be maintained and safeguarded so
that they can be checked as taxonomic concepts change; this is
very important when considering changes in distribution and fruiting
patterns through time due to climate change, pollution, and other
factors.
9. Little progress has been made in developing
web-based taxonomies for fungi, except for major nomenclatural
reference databases which are much in need of honing (see para
7 above). Some CDs have been prepared, mainly outside the UK,
but are limited in taxonomic scope or geographical coverage. Numerous
photographs of macrofungi and lichens are available on the web,
but many are on the sites of amateurs and not always correctly
named. Web-based systems based on monographic treatments are desirable
and would empower and non-specialists to deal with many identifications
themselves, but are not an alternative to having specialists as
many groups of fungi are too poorly collected to enable comprehensive
web-based systems to be constructed.
10. Quality of web-based systems requires
a high levels of systematic knowledge from specialists with extensive
field experience who collaborate with innovative computer specialists.
Such systems also require extensive testing with non-specialists,
something that has been a hallmark of the Field Studies Council's
AIDGAP scheme which we applaud. However, authoritative web-based
systems and computerized keys are not currently been developed
for any major groups of fungi in the UK.
11. Historically there has been a strong
link between the professional fungal (and lichen) taxonomists
at national institutions and amateurs, and many amateurs are extremely
skilled and produce important taxonomic papers. However, the amateurs
need the support of professional systematists, major reference
collections, and specialist libraries in order to make scientific
contributions. Increasingly, UK "amateurs" are collaborating
with molecular systematists outside the UK and preparing joint
publications with them as they are unable to obtain appropriate
support from UK institutions and universities. The national institutions
have also produced the monographs (eg the multivolume British
Fungus Flora from the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh, British
Truffles and Basidiomycete Checklist from the Royal Botanic Gardens
Kew) which are the syntheses of taxonomic work. Their staff have
also been involved in preparing field guides on which amateur
naturalists and mushroom-eaters depend. In addition, the national
institutions formerly provided tutors for courses run by the Field
Studies Council and similar bodies, as well as specialist workshops
for more experienced amateurs and also field excursions. With
so much interest in collecting fungi for food authoritative identification
guides and hands-on training in identification are essential to
minimize poisonings, but the specialists formerly able to undertake
such outreach studies have not been replaced as they have retired
and so fewer such courses are now run.
SKILLS BASE
12. The number of systematic mycologists
in the UK, 10, is at its lowest level since the 1930s and only
one of those is employed in a university (see para 1).
13. There is now almost no teaching of systematic
mycology at any university in the UK, and we are not aware of
any substantial courses devoted to the subject in biology or microbiology
departments. This means that graduates are being produced in these
subject areas which lack even basic knowledge on fungi and how
to identify them that are needed to support careers in many applied
aspects of science, including plant pathology, food safety, pharmaceuticals,
and human health. In addition, there are no longer any formal
postgraduate courses devoted entirely to fungal systematics run
in the UK. Further, the last two PhDs in fungal systematics by
UK nationals were completed in 1995 and 1998, and both of those
mycologists subsequently took up permanent posts in the USA. The
former International Mycological Institute used to make a major
contribution to the MSc in Pure and Applied Plant (and Fungal)
Taxonomy run at the University of Reading and the MSc in Fungal
Biotechnology at the University of Kent; these mainly attracted
overseas students, some of whom went on to obtain PhDs co-supervised
by Institute staff, but these students returned home and the former
arrangements ended in the late 1990s. In the absence of postgraduate
training programmes, where vacancies have arisen for fungal systematists
in the UK the positions have invariably either been filled temporarily
by mycologists from other countries who have subsequently returned
to their own countries, or the posts have remained unfilled (eg
the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew has twice failed to fill an advertised
position for a much-needed specialist on larger fungi). The lack
of trained fungal systematists also means that there is no national
pool from which pharmaceutical industry, plant health, food safety,
and medical centres can recruit mycologists with high skill levels.
In addition there are no UK PhD-level mycologists available to
compete for more general systematic positions that arise in universities.
In order to rectify the present situation, consideration might
be given to: (1) financing a new MSc in Pure and Applied Fungal
Systematics to be taught by current institution-based and retired
specialists; and (2) funding promising graduate students to work
with experienced mycologists so that the expertise could be passed
on (this was highly successful in the NSF-supported PEER programme
in the USA).
[14]. In view of the critical nature of
the current situation as a result of recent and impending retirements
and restructurings, the Society considers that it would not be
inappropriate for an inter-departmental committee to be established
to consider the special situation in mycology and the particular
proposals made herein.
27 Numbers of paragraphs reflect those used in the
"Call for Evidence". Back
|
