Memorandum submitted by the National Museum
Wales
THE STATE
OF SYSTEMATICS
AND TAXONOMY
RESEARCH
1. What is the state of systematics research
and taxonomy in the UK?
— Too much focus on molecular systematics
and genomics at the expense of so-called traditional methods.
— Too little support for basic taxonomic
training within University courses for undergraduates
— Too much reliance on "Amateur"
and non-professionals to undertake basic inventory work.
What are the current research priorities?
— Synthesis of new and existing data
through taxonomic revisions, Taxonomic tools and Inventory (describing
new species)
— Upgrading and creating taxonomic
tools
— Inventory ( describing new species)
What are the barriers, if any, to delivering these
priorities?
— Lack of recognition of value of all
but molecular systematics and genomics in research assessments
and corresponding lack of funding from research councils. All
round low esteem of taxonomy as a discipline.
We believe that taxonomy and systematics have
two functions, firstly to progress the biodiversity inventory
and produce taxonomic tools for the biological community, and
secondly to examine relationships between taxa (phylogeny).
Phylogenetics, especially when employing molecular
methods, is producing fundamental shifts in our understanding
of the evolutionary relationships, and is very interesting to
those working in this field. Limited funding for these studies
is available from research councils and is usually directed towards
already well-known groups of organisms. Such studies may have
practical and applied implications, but they do not often contribute
to describing the mass of new organisms known to exist. Further,
they contribute nothing to practical taxonomic tools (eg, identification
guides) which are far from complete for European/N. American organisms
and largely non-existent for tropical terrestrial and marine biotas.
Biodiversity inventories are essential to conservation
biology and taxonomic tools vital in nearly all biological science.
We believe that the need for taxonomic tools should be better
recognised. The production of these now carries little or no value
in university research assessments and the funding of such work
is lacking from Research Councils. In our own experience, funding
can be gained from charities such as the Leverhulme Trust
and from external contracts. For example, Hawse have a research
contract from the Department of Trade and Industry to produce
a tool for the identification of Marine Bivalve Molluscs from
within the UK Economic Zone, 0-5000 m depth. This indicates the
continuing need for new tools even in the UK. However, such research
contracts are infrequent and do not carry full economic costings.
Consequently, they are ignored by universities, and increasingly
elsewhere.
2. What is the role of systematics and taxonomy
and, in particular, in what way do they contribute to research
areas such as biodiversity conservation, ecosystem services and
climate change?
Taxonomy lies at the base of most biological
research.
In conservation, practitioners need taxonomic
tools to recognise species. The accurate identification of species
remains fundamental in ecosystem services. Infra-specific systematics
is increasingly relevant to conservation and here the molecular
approach is most valuable. Taxonomy is essential in climate change
studies where species ranges are pertinent, and where invasive
or alien species threaten indigenous faunas and economies. Taxonomy
has a seldom-recognised role in generating ideas and novel hypotheses
in biology, including those fields that later become research
council priorities. Synthesis of information by competent taxonomists
is critical to making accurate biological data accessible to other
researchers, in an age when it is often presumed that this is
obtainable from the Internet.
Without accurate knowledge of species limits
and the habitats these taxon occupy and the nature of the threatening
processes (or species), then management of conservation plans
is extremely difficult and can be ineffective.
The lack of taxonomic tools for the majority
of the species providing ecosystem services can limit the level
to which basic research can be carried out by non-specialists
on the value these species provide.
How important is this contribution and how is
it recognised in the funding process?
Fundamental but poorly recognised.
We believe that these contributions are fundamental,
but rarely recognised in the funding process. Indeed, it is often
overlooked by our colleagues in related disciplines. For example,
ecologists rarely cite the taxonomic authorities or tools they
used for identifying the organisms under study. Consequently taxonomic
works have a low citation rating and they are absent from the
funding process. There is a real lack of funding opportunity for
modest studies and early career investigations, which seldom meet
the eligibility requirements of major grant-awarding bodies. Where
possible, such investigations are often carried out ad hoc, and
nearly free of charge, to the benefit of user groups throughout
the world.
How is systematics integrated in other areas of
research?
Rarely integrated.
Taxonomy is often regarded as a service rather
than an integral part of a research programme, especially in ecology.
It is often an after-thought and often it is avoided if possible.
Poorly applied taxonomy produces inadequate and unreliable science.
Even large-scale phylogenetic or barcoding studies, which might
otherwise be of high quality, neglect to voucher their collections
or data and so risk divorcing themselves from pre-existing fundamental
knowledge
Does the way in which systematics research is
organised and co-ordinated best meet the needs of the user community?
There is no co-ordination.
In our experience there is no co-ordination
between the producers of systematics research to recognise or
share available capacity or needs, and there is no UK wide effort
to consult with user groups. If these existed we should now see
resources being made available to tackle difficult groups determined
by the users. Such an approach was mooted by the major Swedish
Taxonomy Initiative, a 20-year project initiated in 2001 with
a solid commitment to descriptive taxonomy and systematics. Unlike
many approaches designed merely to make existing data available
on the Internet (where most funds are diverted into web technology)
the Swedish programme is designed to support the necessary supporting
research.
What progress has been made in setting up a body
to lead on this?
None that we are aware of.
What contribution do the leading systematics research
institutions make both nationally and internationally?
In terms of integration these organisations
are most active in an international context, and appear to be
very successful in initiating and becoming involved in partnerships.
Increasingly, however, such partnerships exclude the smaller players
and there is little national integration. For example, the National
Museum of Wales—despite its contribution to systematics
and scope of collections—is excluded from the Consortium
of European Taxonomic Facilities (CETAF). Yet the UK lead
in London has no formal way in which to involve smaller taxonomic
facilities spread throughout the UK. There is no estimate of the
economic and social value for the taxonomic services freely provided
by the UK's smaller, and often more accessible, institutions.
4. What level of funding would be needed to
meet the need for taxonomic information now and in the future?
Who should be providing this funding?
— Preserve current staffing levels
for taxonomists
— Train staff in areas where gaps in
expertise exist
— Reinforce the need for taxonomic
research to policy makers in museums and universities
— Provide a dedicated funding stream
for taxonomy open to museums and universities in the UK
We do not believe that the only solution is
one of extra funding. However, some of the barriers can be overcome
if we have internal and external recognition of the importance
of taxonomic research in our institutions. Such recognition should
prevent continuing erosion of staffing levels and preserve existing
research funds.
The source of extra funding should probably
be related to the user need. Some funds may come from devolved
governments where taxonomy is needed to support regional conservation
and environmental agencies. A central UK research fund is needed
to allow the UK to contribute to resolving the global taxonomy
impediment. The Darwin Initiative—seen by us as a
beginning—has not lived up to expectations; while supporting
capacity building, it rarely supported any comprehensive taxonomic
research. Steps ought to be taken to ring-fence funds dedicated
to fundamental taxonomy, which can yield far better value for
money, in many circumstances, than molecular phylogenetics.
5. How does funding in other countries compare?
We are unsure of this, but schemes such as PEET
(USA) and the ABRS (Australia) support fundamental taxonomic programmes
in those countries. Our impression is that Europe faces a similar
crisis to that in the UK, with an ageing population of taxonomists
and decline in the formal university teaching of taxonomy and
whole organism biology. The Swedish model is encouraging.
Could there be more international collaboration?
If so, what form should this collaboration take
and how might it be achieved?
The EU-sponsored SYNTHESYS programme allowing
access to facilities provided by CETAF institutions is very successful.
Extension of funding to allow collaboration between individuals
and smaller institutions within Europe would be helpful. Also
in addition, grants giving access to facilities only available
in large institutions could be useful. A grant scheme to allow
researchers from overseas to access specimens from their own countries
held in UK Institutions would be beneficial to many—but
should not discriminate against retired individuals. Postgraduate
students or active taxonomists who are not specifically employed
to undertake taxonomy.
6. What impact have developments in DNA sequencing,
genomics and other new technologies had on systematics research?
These have provided exciting new insights into
evolution, but have pushed out alpha taxonomy and taxonomic tools.
This is rather ironic when knowing the identity of the organisms
worked on is so essential! Funding has been focused into larger
organisations that could afford molecular facilities, and relegated
smaller organisations and the individual to the sidelines. In
higher education, the emphasis on new technologies can distract
from existing ones and does not always discuss their relative
merits.
In what way has systematics embraced new technologies
and how can these research areas interact successfully and efficiently?
Researchers have embraced new technologies very
quickly, particularly in phylogenetics, economic biology/ecology
and studies involving cryptic species. However, some undoubtedly
have done so because that it is the only way that they can have
their research projects funded. In some cases the turnover of
methodologies creates difficulties in the assessment of multiple
sets of data.
DATA COLLECTION,
MANAGEMENT, MAINTENANCE
AND DISSEMINATION
7. Does the way in which taxonomic data is
collected, managed and maintained best meet the needs of the user
community? What is the state of local and national recording schemes?
Data is collected in an ad hoc manner
and the dissemination of such data are currently patchy. Local
and national recording schemes are under funded and, in any case,
mostly carried out either by amateurs or in people's spare time.
The publication of results such as those generated by mapping
schemes is poorly supported.
The development of the UK recording programme
(National Biodiversity Network) has allowed recorders to add data
in a more standardised way, however the level of taxonomic verification
can be extremely variable, with little demand to link records
with museum voucher specimens.
8. What is the role of the major regional
museums and collections? How are taxonomic collections curated
and funded?
National Museum Wales is a major repository
of biodiversity collections relevant to Wales, the UK and internationally,
with approximately 4 million specimens. The scope and size of
the collection will largely determine the contribution any one
museum can make. However, the collections of many museums are
related to our colonial past and, as such, could contribute to
alleviating the global taxonomy impediment. Currently 16 of our
staff contribute to peer reviewed research in taxonomy and systematics.
As a "regional national" this institution
supports taxonomic research and training in the university sector,
and contributes to the work of agencies such as the Countryside
Council for Wales and the Environment Agency Wales.
It carries out research relevant to UK needs and works in partnership
with overseas colleagues in Europe, Africa, SE Asia and the Americas.
We therefore view these "regional nationals" as an integral
part of the overall UK taxonomic community which should be able
to integrate their work with the Natural History Museum, Kew and
the Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh.
They should also retain a regional function
to support what are now devolved areas of the UK. These museums
are primarily multi-discipline institutions with both cultural
and science remits. Across the field, the current political priorities
for such museums are often social and cultural, and they are increasingly
losing their science role. They are funded by regional government
or unitary authorities and, within these, are often governed by
administrations geared towards the arts, social history or even
tourism. Funding taxonomic research or bioinformatics based on
the collections is rarely high on the priority list, with emphasis
placed on exhibitions and schools education. In our own situation
the majority of our taxonomic work is funded externally or is
derived as an offshoot of contract work; direct funding does not
support taxonomic research other than the salaries of the staff
who also have curatorial and outreach duties to perform. No staff
are totally dedicated to research. Over the years we have witnessed
a decline in research output and reduction in taxonomically skilled
staff in most large regional museums.
Unlike the situation in "leading"
systematics institutions, engagement in the taxonomy agenda is
low key in regional museums. Previous reviews carried out by the
Select Committee appear not to have been considered by the Welsh
Office or the Welsh Assembly Government, at least as far as this
institution was considered. We would hope that this position can
be rectified, particularly as it would appear that one of unfortunate
consequences of devolution has been the fragmentation of any UK
policy on systematics, and the isolation of many institutions
in the devolved countries. We believe that an overarching policy
and strategy is urgently required.
9. What progress has been made in developing
a web-based taxonomy? How do such initiatives fit in with meeting
demand for systematics and taxonomy information? How do UK-led
initiatives fit in with international initiatives and is there
sufficient collaboration?
Clearly, the world-wide web will be fundamental
in accessing much data and taxonomic information on species worldwide.
However, at present, web-based taxonomy seems to be a concept
rather than a reality. Most taxonomic end-users still appreciate
and value traditional books as well as having information accessible
via the web. Any web-based taxonomic developments will depend
on having taxonomists available to carry out the initiatives.
It might be judged that major UK-led initiatives are now driven
more by financial imperatives than by a current utility. The longevity
of websites and the maintenance of sites over time are real issues-
as are compliance with the formal requirements of Codes of
Nomenclature.
10. What needs to be done to ensure that web-based
taxonomy information is of high quality, reliable and user-friendly?
Coordination must be developed between taxonomists
and those who are skilled in web-based tools. It is vital that
web-based products are presented well and easy to use. Although
progress has been made in automatic abstracting software, it remains
a poor substitute for quality-control by trained taxonomists.
The collections and libraries that support such tools remain the
primary resource.
Web taxonomy should be linked to high quality
images that come from verified material that is accessible in
major Museums.
11. How does the taxonomic community engage
with the non-taxonomic community? What role do field studies play?
The lack of a new generation of taxonomists
is a problem that has been often discussed with little outcome.
The virtual demise of field studies in school at GCSE and A-level
does little to assist in encouraging an interest in tangible natural
history. Our own experiences with University students have shown
us that there is a wider interest in taxonomy than might be expected.
However, this interest is not satisfied or cultivated in current
biological or environmental courses. Individual taxonomists are
nearly always vigorous communicators of taxonomy, yet lack the
institutional resources to market their subject to large audiences.
The success of the BBC Natural History Unit demonstrates that
the potential market for engagement is enormous.
Consideration should be given to re-incorporation
of a formal requirement for field-based studies into the National
Curriculum and all University courses, with appropriate funding
sources to allow such programmes.
Consideration should be given to funding to
provide taxonomists to provide professional training courses for
teachers, youth leaders and student teachers.
SKILLS BASE
12. What are the numbers and ages of trained
taxonomists working in UK universities and other organisations?
The National Museum Wales has 16 such individuals,
the majority over 40. This is perhaps the highest number employed
outside of the Natural History Museum in London. However, our
perception, in general, is that the number of taxonomists in paid
employment is continuing to decline. Financial imperatives in
our own institution could well result in future job losses in
curatorial/research posts.
13. What is the state of training and education
in systematics and taxonomy?
We can speak only from experiences with university
graduates in Wales. Little or no taxonomic training is given at
the undergraduate level. During a course given to 45 marine biology
masters students in January 2008 all requested more taxonomic
training and all admitted to little or no formal tuition at the
under graduate level. The state of basic training is probably
very poor throughout the UK. On being asked if she had experience
with keys a graduate volunteer said she had used them for one
afternoon. Such anecdotes are widespread. The limited funding
for taxonomic research means Universities do not recruit taxonomists
as lecturers, so undergraduate exposure continues to decline.
In turn this leads undergraduates to doubt that taxonomy is a
viable career option, so further training is not sought.
Are there any gaps in capacity?
Is the number of taxonomists in post, and those
that are being trained, sufficient to meet current and future
needs across all taxonomic subject areas?
In a recent review that we carried out in Wales
with stakeholders such as the Countryside Council for Wales,
many gaps were recognised especially in basic identification capacity.
Macrofungii, soil meso-invertebrates, algae, marine epifauna,
freshwater zooplankton and marine crustaceans (not decapods) were
all highlighted as areas where basic capacity was absent.
Training to fill such gaps will only be effective
if posts are created for them. Currently some of these gaps are
filled by retired experts or by amateurs, but the gaps are increasing
as these people cease activity. Our department provides high-quality
taxonomic training where possible but is limited by resources.
The ratio of students or trainees to mentors or supervisors in
taxonomy is a fraction of what it is in molecular phylogenetics,
again reflecting the research funding bias. As the gaps in capacity
increase, even fundamental taxonomic skills will continue to be
lost.
If we expand our view to the international position
then, in developing countries where biological diversity is high,
taxonomic capacity is scant. Overseas capacity-building by institutions
like ours can be very successful but is only feasible if our capacity
is maintained.
| 
