Memorandum submitted by the Linnean Society
of London
The Linnean Society welcomes the opportunity
to assist the Select Committee on Science and Technology, with
evidence on the state of taxonomy and systematics in the United
Kingdom, from our perspective as one of the oldest learned societies
dedicated to the study of natural history, of which taxonomy and
systematics form an important part. The Society, because of its
broad Fellowship, is able to take a broad view of the issues,
and is not tied to any institution with its own particular agenda.
We benefit from a world-wide Fellowship, and can relate to issues
that extend beyond the UK, but which have a bearing on what we
can deliver.
Despite two inquiries into the state of these
areas of research endeavour, little has changed in the overall
UK research environment, with a continued decline being seen in
the subject in universities and no substantive increase in support
for our world-class taxonomic institutions. Some notable exceptions
of course exist, and we will highlight these in our evidence.
Data to answer questions posed by the Committee
are hard to come by, although we are ever mindful of the underlying
issues that affect the state of systematics and taxonomy in the
United Kingdom and abroad. Nonetheless, we have attempted to gather
together best-available information to support our statements,
whilst in other areas we provide only anecdotal evidence gleaned
from the perspective of our Fellowship which represents a broad
cross-section of the natural history community, both professional
and amateur. From our perspective, the following clear points
emerge:
— The basic descriptive taxonomy upon
which both identification and phylogeny depend has suffered comparably
more than other sectors of taxonomic science.
— Integration of taxonomy into other
biological projects is critical for taking a truly comparative
view of our changing world.
— Significant new funding should be
directed to taxonomy, in order that the UK scientific community
can benefit from and be at the forefront of the exciting new opportunities
and responsibilities for taxonomic science. Reallocation of existing
resources will not be adequate for this expansion.
THE STATE
OF TAXONOMY
AND SYSTEMATICS
RESEARCH
1. What is the state of systematics research
and taxonomy in the UK? What are the current research priorities?
What are the barriers, if any, to delivering these priorities?
1.1 Systematics and taxonomy can usefully
be divided into three overlapping major tasks: identification
(working out what an organism is), description (working out the
limits of species, genera and higher groups) and phylogeny (working
out how organisms are evolutionarily related). Each of these areas
of research has a different dynamic, and each is at a different
state in terms of support and health.
1.2 Our Fellows have indicated that they
consider descriptive taxonomy to be the most "at-risk"
sector of the research endeavour, not only in terms of ability
to describe new species and document the biodiversity of ecosystems,
but in order to refine, better understand and even diagnose the
species we already know. These descriptive data provide the baseline
for understanding, and are not really an end in themselves. Natural
history, the science to which our Society is dedicated, encompasses
both the naming and documenting of nature, and also to the understanding
of its role in ecosystems.
1.3 In our evidence to the 2002 inquiry,
we suggested a number of projects spanning the activities of taxonomy
(phylogeny, description and identification). We will not reiterate
these here, but instead suggest that one clear research priority
in descriptive taxonomy is the provision of working lists of species,
such as that mandated by Target 1 of the Global Strategy for
Plant Conservation: "a working list of all known plant
species, as a step towards a world flora." Such lists are
feasible in some taxonomic groups, such as plants or Lepidoptera,
but currently unrealistic in groups such as nematodes or bacteria.
1.4 The single biggest barrier to delivering
research priorities in taxonomy and systematics is the static
(if not declining) population of scientists with expertise in
the taxonomy and biology of organisms. The staff complements at
many of our major museums and herbaria remain constant, while
others (particularly the smaller nationally-funded museums such
as National Museums Liverpool, who have large systematics collections)
have seen a significant decline. While these numbers are reinforced
by grant-funded staff, the numbers of tasks and types of research
done by core staff are expanding greatly.
1.5 The Society greatly appreciates the
honorary curators of our own collections, all of whom come from
the Natural History Museum. The Museum's collegial spirit in allowing
their staff to assist us with the care of the important historical
collections we hold, is one of many ways in which these institutions
collaborate to improve the state of taxonomy in the UK. But even
in the Natural History Museum, the UK's largest taxonomic institution,
the percentage of staff involved in descriptive taxonomy is declining,
although staff numbers have remained relatively constant (5.5
per cent decrease). This is not to say that the Museum is not
setting the correct priorities for research (that is, after all
their prerogative and responsibility), but that the increasing
scope of the research environment in taxonomy means that even
in our largest institution devoted to taxonomy and systematics,
the core descriptive part of the science is declining, just as
society perhaps needs it most.
| | |
| |
| Department | Core funded staff
| Percent of core staff undertaking descriptive taxonomy as some part of their job
|
| 1992-93 | 2006-07
| 1992-93 | 2006-07
|
| | |
| |
| Botany | 50 (30) | 49 (20)
| 60% | 41% |
| Entomology | 73 (39) | 67 (33)
| 53% | 49% |
| Zoology | 77 (28) | 73 (18)
| 36% | 24% |
| All Life Sciences | 200 (97)
| 189 (71) | 50% | 38%
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
1.6 The Linnean Society contributes to the user community
through its three peer-reviewed journals: Biological (BiolJLS),
Botanical (BotJLS) and Zoological (ZooJLS) Journals of the Linnean
Society, each of which is published 12 times a year and is distributed
to more than 60 countries. Through its network of reviewers and
editors, the Society makes a major contribution to the publication
of original research on taxonomy and systematics. We consider
the decline in the percentage of UK-based authors in our journals
(see below) to be reflective of the decline in taxonomy in the
UK; this is most marked in our journals that concentrate on descriptive
taxonomy.
| | |
| |
| Journal | Authors
2001
| per cent
UK authors
2001 |
Authors
2007 | per cent
UK authors
2007
|
| | |
| |
| BiolJLS | 135 | 14%
| 225 | 14% |
| BotJLS | 117 | 14%
| 196 | 9% |
| ZooJLS | 58 | 29%
| 101 | 17% |
| Total | 310 | 17%
| 552 | 12% |
| | |
| |
| Data courtesy of Wiley-Blackwell |
| |
| |
| | |
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?
How important is this contribution and how is it recognised in
the funding process? How is systematics integrated in other areas
of research?
2.1 Descriptive taxonomy provides the ability to discern
the units of biodiversity—species delimitation is essentially
a hypothesis about the distribution of variation in nature, plus
providing a name with which to communicate information about those
hypotheses. Large vertebrates are today largely described at the
species level, while insects, nematodes and many other invertebrate
phyla are largely undescribed. This means that the level at which
diversity is described will differ between taxonomic groups. The
units and types of data needed for predicting and documenting
the effects of environmental change will also differ between taxonomic
groups. New technologies will help with this task, but sufficient
capacity across the taxonomic spectrum will need to be maintained
in order to interpret the data.
2.2 Repeatable identification allows monitoring through
space and time, possibly the most important tool for assessing
the effects of environmental change on the Earth's biodiversity.
Diagnostics of many kinds, from molecular to image-related, will
be needed in order to best monitor biodiversity in the face of
such change. More identification guides and tools—from field
guides to more technology-based tools—will need to be produced
in order to shift the burden of identification from a diminishing
taxonomic community to society at large. Citizen participation
in monitoring, is critical to achieving the volume of data needed
for predictability; taxonomists with expertise in particular groups
will be needed to train this new generation of citizen scientists.
Similar training needs to be extended to scientists and parascientists
throughout the developing world as their impressive biodiversity
particularly needs study in order to address issues associated
with biodiversity loss, invasive species, sustainable development
and environmental monitoring.
2.3 The collections held in taxonomic institutions also
provide key data for predicting and monitoring change. Range changes
in insects and plants have been both shown and modelled using
data derived from museum collections; this baseline data needs
to be synthesized and made publicly available in usable ways,
which will entail additional resources for museums and other collections.
Making these data available is a support task for taxonomy as
well as for environmental change monitoring, but is intimately
linked with the use of these same collections by taxonomists,
who give them added value.
2.4 Taxonomy, like all science, is an on-going task and
estimates of the number of people needed over a finite time for
open-ended tasks are invariably unrealistic. What is necessary
for taxonomy to contribute effectively to a response to environmental
challenges such as climate change and biodiversity loss, is recognition
of its role and provision of funding for taxonomists in the context
of larger, interdisciplinary projects.
2.5 Integration of phylogeny into other areas of biological
research has become the standard, but the recognition of the importance
of descriptive taxonomy and/or identification is lagging behind.
Molecular and morphological phylogenetics remains founded on descriptive
taxonomy and the need for accurate identification and the deposition
of voucher specimens remains central to the discipline. Disturbingly,
many researchers employing phylogenetics tend to use the scientific
names of their organisms with little thought as to how that species
might be circumscribed, or identify species in a study without
citing the identification guide used to undertake those identifications.
3. Does the way in which systematics research is organised
and co-ordinated best meet the needs of the user community? What
progress has been made in setting up a body to lead on this? What
contribution do the leading systematics research institutions
make both nationally and internationally?
3.1 We have seen no progress at all on setting up a coordination
body for systematics research, but we see little point in having
such a body if there are not substantial funds available with
which to help direct research through competitive funding. Coordination
best done through dialogue and interaction, as is happening in
the EU-funded EDIT project (see below) through the collaborative
working of European taxonomists. Ad hoc groups looking
at the future of a subject that contain both practicing scientists
and institutional managers would, in our view and given the current
funding structure, be a more effective way of coordinating and
organising research priorities in a flexible and proactive way
than the establishment of a top-down, centralised coordinating
body with no funds to disburse. Importantly, although biodiversity,
molecular evolution and phylogenetics are said to be integral
to UK Research Council strategies (notably NERC and BBSRC) none
of these grant awarding bodies have taken a substantial lead in
releasing significant funds dedicated to systematics or taxonomy.
3.2 The UK is fortunate in having major taxonomic institutions
that have a global perspective, have world class collections and
research and are internationally recognised as centres of excellence.
Staff in these institutions undertake research in all aspects
of taxonomic science. As stated earlier, all our honorary curators
are drawn from NHM staff, and our Council regularly has members
from all three of the major UK systematics institutions (RBGKew,
NHM, RBGEdinburgh), universities and other institutes (eg, Royal
Horticultural Society) with taxonomic expertise.
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?
4.1 Need for information on names and distributions of
organisms is met by descriptive taxonomists, and will continue
to be met by future generations of descriptive taxonomists. Because
new collections need to be assessed against current identification
and classification schemes, taxonomy, like any science, is an
on-going endeavour. In order for taxonomy to remain responsive
to expanding user needs and the institutions providing information
to provide it in increasingly diverse ways, the UK systematics
institutions need stable funding.
4.2 The Linnean Society, with the Systematics Association,
operates a competitive grants scheme for work in taxonomy (in
the broadest sense). These grants, though small, are extremely
competitive (see table below). The Systematics Research Fund (SRF:
with £20,000 from the Linnean Society, £6,000 from the
Systematics Association, £5,000 from the Bentham-Moxon Trust
and £5,000 from NERC) funds small projects, the average request
in 2007-08 was £1,026. Applicants to the SRF for the current
round were from 33 countries (USA, 36 applications, UK 35 applications),
up from 22 countries in the previous year. The BBSRC Collaborative
Scheme for Systematics Research (Co-Syst—also managed by
the Linnean Society and Systematics Association) is a three-year
programme (£75,000/year, £225,000 total), to fund collaborative
research between systematists and non-systematists that is judged
will lead to full Research Council proposals in due course. In
the last round, the Linnean Society contributed an additional
£9,993 to the fund, in order that six full projects could
be funded. The scheme does not allow institutions to claim overheads,
and although we appreciate the scheme's aims in general, we would
like to point out that the total sum over three years is less
than the average single 3-year BBSRC responsive mode grant (£245,000
in 2006; see BBSRC 2006 report at http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/organisation/structures/council/2006/0610_hei.pdf).
|
| 2006-07 | SRF
| Co-Syst |
|
| Number of applications received | 98
| 48 |
| Applications funded | 37 |
6 |
| Success rate | 37% | 12.5%
|
| Funds disbursed | £36,000 (see above)
| £84,993 (see above) |
|
| |
|
5. How does funding in other countries compare? Could there
be more international collaboration? If so, what form should this
collaboration take and how might it be achieved?
5.1 If we consider that the funding the Society and its
partners provides constitutes the only real source of dedicated
grant funding for primarily taxonomic projects in the UK, the
competitive grant funding for taxonomy per se amounts to
less than £200,000 per year. In contrast, in the United States,
the National Science Foundation through its Division of Environmental
Biology programmes dedicated to taxonomy (eg, Biotic Surveys and
Inventories cluster (including the Planetary Biodiversity Inventory
[PBI] and Partnerships in Enhancing Expertise in Taxonomy [PEET];
REVSYS [supporting revisionary taxonomy] etc.) provides more than
$12 million per year to the taxonomic community (not including
the $14 million of new money dedicated to the Assembling the Tree
of Life project [AtoL] all data provided by NSF). In Australia,
the ABRS (Australian Biological Resources Study) currently provides
some Aus$ 1.5 million per year for taxonomic research, in addition
to the funding of infrastructure in systematics institutions such
as herbaria and museums (http://www.dest.gov.au/NR/rdonlyres/031861A1-5FA2-45A0-8037-F7244657C680/2853/ABRS.doc).
The Swedish government has made a significant long-term investment
in the documentation and publication of the Swedish flora and
fauna through the Swedish Taxonomy Initiative, a 20-year programme
that has been fully funded since 2005 (http://www.artdata.slu.se/svenskaartprojektet/svenskaartprojektet_eng.asp).
5.2 International collaboration is central to the PBI
projects (see below under Q9) and several UK teams are partners
in these projects. The EDIT (European Distributed Institute for
Taxonomy) project, funded under Framework 6 of the European Union,
has brought together a vibrant team of European partners in exploring
collaborative methods for taxonomic work. These initiatives are
largely concerned with web (or electronic) taxonomy, and thus
international collaboration is becoming more extensive. Our Fellows
and members of our Council have been or are actively involved
in these activities.
6. What impact have developments in DNA sequencing, genomics
and other new technologies had on systematics research? In what
way has systematics embraced new technologies and how can these
research areas interact successfully and efficiently?
6.1 Taxonomists have embraced new technologies eagerly
where they have proved useful—ie molecular phylogenetics,
new generation sequencing (pilot project participation by taxonomists).
The use of DNA sequence data has become standard for phylogeny
reconstruction in most groups of organisms. The increasing sophistication
of molecular techniques and diagnostics has made the analysis
of precious archival material possible, and this year allowed
sampling of one of Linnaeus' own specimens, resulting in the resolution
of a tricky taxonomic problem in the green algae (see http://www.nature.com/news/2007/071220/full/news.2007.396.html).
New techniques are added to the repertoire of those already used
and found useful; this increase in types of data used is reflected
in our library accessions, which have expanded considerably in
the last decade (to more than 500 volumes per year).
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?
7.1 User communities for taxonomic information are diverse
and many. Digital access to taxonomic data, both in terms of names
and specimens is increasingly the standard, but maintaining these
data does not come without cost. The Linnean Society embarked
on a major programme to digitise the Linnaean collections in 2006;
this year we have completed—(with funding of our own and
from the Lisbet Rausing Charitable Fund [now Arcadia] Foundation
totalling £1.1 million over 3 years)—the plants (17,000
images, 2.2 Tb of disk space) and insects (27,000 images, 1.1
Tb of disk space), and we are now beginning with the rest of the
specimen collection. The storage, security and maintenance arrangements
for the amounts of data we now provide digitally represent for
us a significant annual additional budget item, and the same is
true for any institution providing data in this way.
8. What is the role of the major regional museums and collections?
How are taxonomic collections curated and funded?
8.1 Collections held in major UK museums, both national
and regional, are a priceless record of the distribution of life
on Earth. The role of such institutions is in part to safeguard
these data (objects) from the past and interpret them for the
future. This requires not only curation of the objects themselves,
but the maintenance of staff who use the collections to ask scientific
questions. Thus, the dual curation/research role of these institutions
is essential.
8.2 The Linnean Society has a Botanical Collections Managers
Special Interest Group, that serves as a forum for discussions
and collaboration on matters pertaining to collection curation
and care. In general, the group has concluded that in regional
collections and museums curation tends not to be well-resourced
and often required to take the same approach to curation
as that given to the care of museum artefacts (eg paintings,
sculpture, books etc.). This approach fails to recognise the differences
inherent in the care of natural history collections (eg loan policies,
documentation) and certainly does not resource research on these
regional collections or even providing essential collections information
to the public. An example of this is the Herbaria@Home initiative
(http://herbariaunited.org/atHome/), which is endorsed by the
Linnean Society, but not by the University of Manchester, which
has responsibility for the herbarium where the initiative is being
developed by staff. The potential for co-ordinating
collections through the internet is amply demonstrated by the
collaborative work of the Australian herbaria, see Australia's
Virtual Herbarium http://www.anbg.gov.au/avh/, which if
developed in the UK would provide access to a wider audience and
enable them to appreciate the benefits of securing these unique
collections of biodiversity.
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?
9.1 Huge progress has been made in establishing various
different models of web taxonomy since the National Science Foundation
funded the first Planetary Biodiversity Inventory (PBI) projects
in late 2002. The Encyclopedia of Life (EoL—with the challenging
goal of a web page for every described species in 10 years) is
the most exciting project on the horizon; we will watch how it
develops with great interest. Many of our Fellows have expressed
interest in contributing, and when E.O. Wilson spoke at the Society
in December, lively discussions ensued. The single web taxonomy
project (Creating an e-taxonomy, CATE) funded in the UK by NERC
has established an interesting working model; with a re-compilation
of existing data and development of a peer-review system. The
many PBI projects in the USA are all web-available, and the initiative
has established a good set of people all working with different
models and learning from each other. This we suspect will lead
to an evolutionary process in the development of web taxonomy,
with projects borrowing good elements and becoming better through
competition. The PBI initiative is international in scope; in
the UK several of the major systematics institutions are partners
in these projects (eg, NHM & RBG Kew—funded projects
on Solanum, parasitoid wasps; proposals for palms, mosquitoes,
Encasia wasps, Porphyra algae). Few enough people
are developing these initiatives that collaboration is extensive—for
example, both the NERC project and one UK-based PBI project are
actively involved with EoL.
9.2 Issues associated with web taxonomy have been debated
at the Linnean Society recently. In November 2007 we held our
annual Systematics Debate and the topic was electronic publication
of new names. Over 100 people attended, indicating these issues
are of great interest to the community. Recently, some of our
Fellows have established an e-taxonomy Special Interest group.
These groups have budgets provided by the Society with which to
hold meetings and workshops, so we expect to see more activity
centred around web taxonomy in the Society in the near future.
9.3 In 2007 the Linnean Society and the Natural History
Museum completed the Linnaean Plant Name Typification Project,
that established type specimens retroactively for the 9,000 plant
names of species coined by Linnaeus, so that the names can be
correctly used. The results are available both on-line and in
print and the data are linked to the Society's herbarium specimens
on-line. The Society is now investigating making the information
available in a wider context through such initiatives as the Biodiversity
Collections Index.
10. What needs to be done to ensure that web-based taxonomy
information is of high quality, reliable and user-friendly?
10.1 Quality control is essential for web taxonomy to
be authoritative and reliable. Peer review is an important way
in which this can be achieved—management of this is still
evolving. Our provision of images and associated of Linnaean material
has been rigorously reviewed, and we feel that the quality of
the data is as important as the quality of the images. Quality,
however, does entail cost, and assuring the high quality of web-available
data requires expertise in not only technology but in the organisms.
10.2 In collaboration with our publishers, Wiley-Blackwell,
we are making ca. 40,000 pages of back issues of our journals
(see 1.6 above) web-available in the near future. This means all
the work published by the Society, including the original papers
describing the theory of evolution by natural selection by Darwin
and Wallace, will soon be accessible to all. Also with Wiley-Blackwell,
we are exploring models for establishing an electronically disseminate,
rapid publication for new names of plants (the journal Zootaxa
fills this niche for animals). The trail of models for electronic
publishing of new names is particularly important as taxonomy
moves towards the Internet.
11. How does the taxonomic community engage with the non-taxonomic
community? What role do field studies play?
11.1 The Linnean Society is an organisation whose Fellowship
is open to all with a passion for natural history and our Fellows
come from all walks of life. Meetings at the Society are therefore
an opportunity for interaction between the taxonomic and non-taxonomic
communities interested in natural history. Our meetings are well
attended (averaging 73 attendees with sell-outs for more popular
events), indicating to us that at least amongst those attending,
there is a willingness to engage and interact.
11.2 The Linnean Society has been pleased to work hand
in hand with the Field Studies Council in the production of a
New Series of Synopses of the British Fauna. Such synopses have
proved a vital starting point for the subsequent production of
keys and guides (not least by the Field Studies Council), which
have in turn enabled practising biologists, students and citizen
biologists, to carry out field studies vital to an understanding
of the distribution and consequent conservation management of
British animal biodiversity. However, many groups remain without
such a basic tool, and there are many gaps in the availability
of specialists with both the knowledge and the time to carry out
this work.
11.3 While field studies play an important role in enthusing
interest in natural history among non-specialists, museums also
play an important role. School visits to see biodiversity collections
in museums at KS2 level can provide that initial spark of inspiration
which leads to a lifetime's interest in natural history, as is
evidenced by the experience of many of our Fellows.
SKILLS BASE
12. What are the numbers and ages of trained taxonomists
working in UK universities and other organisations?
12.1 We have no direct data on the numbers and ages of
trained taxonomists working in the UK, but we are concerned with
the aging structure of our Fellowship, which to a certain extent
reflects that of the taxonomic community (or that part interested
in natural history).
13. What is the state of training and education in systematics
and taxonomy? 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?
13.1 The Linnean Society itself does not provide training
in systematics and taxonomy, but acts as a venue for meetings
and workshops, which complement training. The Society also awards
the Irene Manton prize for best botanical PhD done in the United
Kingdom, demonstrating support for students. Training is undertaken
at our major systematics institutions (RBGs Kew, Edinburgh, NHM)
and we participate in this through tours of our collections, loan
of our library (to which all Fellows have open access) and our
meetings programme.
13.2 We are currently looking at our potential role in
education at a variety of levels as part of our strategic plan.
Given adequate financial support for training programmes, we have
the talented resources among our Fellows to enthusiastic and rigorous
training in taxonomy and systematics to a wide range of audiences,
and are open to integrating with others having the same aims.
4 February 2008
| 
