Memorandum submitted by the Systematics
Association
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
1.1. The Systematics Association is convinced
that previous attempts to remedy the decline of systematics in
general, and taxonomy in particular, in the UK have (a) been insufficiently
ambitious and (b) have not taken adequate account of the interconnectivity
of related disciplines. We emphasise that many of the chronic
problems besetting taxonomy reflect several recent changes in
the academic environment that have together conspired to damage
all research disciplines that are inherently long term. This realisation
raises the broader question of whether the UK's present strategies
for research policy and funding are competent to maintain the
research programmes that underpin not only biodiversity assessment
but also monitoring of environmental changes and climatic shifts—all
fundamentally long-term goals.
1.2. After reviewing the challenges that
presently face systematic biology in the UK, the Association concludes
that the following actions are of highest priority (they are presented
in logical rather than priority order):
(2)
Conduct a thorough and inclusive survey of the current
status of the UK systematics community and the requirements of
its user communities.
(3)
Undertake a detailed consultation with all current
and potential substantial funders of systematics and biodiversity
research.
(4)
Agree a prioritised list of goals for the UK systematics
community, and agree the best methods of achieving those goals.
(5)
Recognising the global success of "Genbank",
agree a prioritised list of databases and a set of inducements
to encourage systematists to routinely deposit other categories
of relevant information in those preferred databases.
(6)
Develop a mixed economy for funding that spans the
full possible range from small, short-term awards to very large,
long-term programmes.
(7)
Coordinate funds from multiple sources in order to
guarantee funding for prioritised long-term research goals over
unusually long time-scales.
(8)
Establish a new national Institute of Biodiversity
Research, requiring a substantial number of permanent salaried
taxonomic positions to be inaugurated within several pre-existing
systematics institutes, biodiversity monitoring institutes and
research universities.
(10)
Apply to these new university appointees a set of
RAE-style assessment criteria specifically optimised for performance
in the taxonomic field.
(11)
Introduce more organismal biology into the national
curriculum, and restore previous levels of laboratory experimentation
and field excursions in schools and universities.
(12)
Provide increased resources and improved coordination
for organisations that encourage the acquisition and constructive
use of taxonomic skills by amateur natural historians.
1.3. The Association believes that the above
challenges can be met only by bringing genuinely new resources
into systematic biology. The series of HoL reports has, until
now, relied largely upon recommendations that redeployed existing
resources. It is sometimes stated that such practices are akin
to rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. However, given the
level of resources currently available to systematic biology,
it would be more accurate to describe many of the recently suggested
remedies as repositioning the cushions in the lifeboats.
2. THE NATURE
AND AIMS
OF THE
SYSTEMATICS ASSOCIATION
2.1. The Systematics Association and Linnean
Society together represent the primary independent bodies responsible
for the UK's contribution to systematic biology and biodiversity
studies. Although pursuing a broad remit of evolutionary biology,
these organisations place particular emphasis on describing, identifying,
comparing and understanding organisms using a broad spectrum of
analytical techniques.
2.2. The Systematics Association separated
from the Linnean Society in 1937, in order to become a fast-moving,
forward-looking, relatively youthful organisation, able to represent
active professional systematic biologists at both the national
and international scales. It aims to maximise its impact on the
international systematics community within the constraint of its
limited financial resources. This strategy has precluded acquisition
of paid staff or dedicated accommodation but has permitted the
Association to take the lead in initiating two modestly funded
but highly subscribed grants schemes (Systematics Research Fund
and CoSyst). The primary role of the Association is to coordinate,
and publish the proceedings of, professional conferences targeted
on specific topics (the next such meeting will be held in Dublin
and will address the topic of Systematic Biology and Climate
Change). In recent years the Association has become more deeply
involved in science policy, both directly and indirectly, via
the Biosciences Federation. Working together with four other systematics
associations representing other western European countries, we
recently co-founded the lobby group BioSyst EU. Thus, the next
international biennial conference of the Association will be held
in the Netherlands, under the auspices of BioSyst.
3. THE NATURE
OF SYSTEMATICS:
TERMINOLOGY USED
IN THIS
SUBMISSION
3.1. The core sister-disciplines within
systematic (comparative) biology are taxonomy and phylogenetics
(see Figure). Taxonomy concerns the delimitation, description,
and identification of all species and other taxa, both extant
and extinct. This has traditionally been pursued via global treatments
of a relatively narrow range of species (monographs) or regional
treatments of a much wider range of species (inventories leading
to floras/ faunas), typically based primarily on reference collections
of specimens. Taxonomy is increasingly integrating information
from various nucleic acid-based approaches such as population
genetics and "DNA bar-coding". Phylogenetics explores
the evolutionary relationships among the species and other taxa
that have been generated by taxonomists, using various comparative
approaches to explore both morphological and DNA-based information.
Its ultimate aim is to reconstruct and interpret the "tree
of life". Both taxonomy and phylogenetics are integrated
into the naming of taxa and their organisation into hierarchical
systems of classification.
3.2. It is commonly (and correctly) stated
that taxonomy provides the essential framework for any biological
study, by providing the formal classifications and names, and
also the standardised terminology, to reference, describe and
identify the organisms that constitute the Earth's biota. It can
justly be argued that any biological study, and certainly any
comparative biological study, is rooted in taxonomy. Taxonomic
activities can usefully be categorised in two subdisciplines (see
Figure). Descriptive taxonomy is comparatively creative and proactive,
inevitably requiring specialist knowledge and involving the formal
(indeed, highly prescriptive) description of new taxa, followed
by their redescription as further relevant data are gathered.
Applied taxonomy is generally more reactive, encompassing the
subsequent use of those classifications to identify organisms,
and the dissemination of the resulting data on species recognition
and distribution. Recent attempts have been made to reduce the
level of specialist knowledge needed to identify organisms. Applied
taxonomy generates information that is fed back into descriptive
taxonomy in a positive feedback loop, either directly or through
other more obviously charismatic disciplines encompassed by systematic
biology, notably evolutionary comparison of species (phylogenetics)
and populations (see Figure). This mutual support among systematic
disciplines is critical to the success of systematic biology;
positive or negative impacts on one discipline have corresponding
effects on the remaining disciplines.
3.3. Taxonomy and phylogenetics are intellectual
challenges sufficiently rigorous to be justifiable on their own
merit. However, in recent years they have been justified primarily
on the grounds that they feed directly into a wide range of other
biological disciplines; they are essential to our understanding
of evolution and speciation, biogeography, ecology (including
sustainability and environmental issues), conservation, agriculture
s.l. (including horticulture, forestry and fisheries), biomedicine
and biotechnology (unfortunately, the inter-dependency of these
disciplines is still not immediately obvious to non-systematists).
Systematics also underpins more general interests in natural history
and social phenomena such as education and leisure. In addition
to generating such data, much recent discussion has focused on
improving methods of disseminating systematic information, notably
via networked databases. It is widely accepted (not least by the
2002 House of Lords review) that it is taxonomy rather than phylogenetics
that has suffered the most serious decline during the last two
decades (phylogenetics was especially strongly promoted by the
1992 House of Lords review). However, it is important to recognise
that any future prescription aiming to benefit taxonomy should
also consider the likely downstream impacts of such recommendations
on phylogenetics, and on the many user groups exploiting taxonomic
and phylogenetic information.
3.4. A joint Systematics Association/Linnean
Society working group sought to identify the key priorities for
these organisations, and in March 2005 recommended that we:
(2)
Achieve a better balance between, and better integration
of, whole-organism and molecular science.
(3)
Promote systematics as a discipline that is both
scholarly and socially relevant, primarily through meetings and
a diversity of publications.
(5)
Restore routine teaching of organismal biology and
the "informal apprenticeship" that ultimately generates
professional systematists.
(6)
Facilitate the substantial contributions to natural
history of student, retired and amateur researchers.
(7)
Translate accumulating scientific knowledge into
high-level policy, notably via research and education strategies.
Further strategic planning is ongoing within
the Association's council.
4. ASSOCIATION'S
VIEW OF
THE 2002 LORDS
REVIEW WHAT
IN EARTH?
4.1. The Systematics Association gave What
on Earth a broadly positive reception upon its publication
in 2002, and we remain supportive, while recognising that the
environment in which we operate has change substantially during
the subsequent six years. We considered the 2002 report to be
well-informed and each of its recommendations to have merit. However,
we found it disappointingly conservative in several respects;
the number of recommendations was small (9) and their content
unduly modest. Few of the recommendations required significantly
increased investment from government, instead focusing on reallocating
within the UK, the limited resources then available to systematic
biologists and/or suggesting actions to be taken by (generally
reluctant) intermediate organisations.
4.2. We assumed that the modest number and
negligible cost to government of the Lord's proposals was intended
to encourage the government to enact those proposals rapidly and
effectively. We were therefore especially shocked by the dismissive
tone and minimal content of the government's formal response (Anon.
2002). Although a minority of the recommendations were implemented
rapidly, wholly or in part, at least one relatively simple recommendation
was only enacted four years later (Recommendation 5, BBSRC analogue
status for the Royal Botanic Gardens). Moreover, other recommendations
were ignored, and at least one resulted in withdrawal of funding
(Recommendation 9, arguing for increased spending by Defra on
the Darwin Initiative, was initially followed, but funding of
the Initiative was suspended of the grounds of fiscal expediency
in 2007/8). Primarily due to inaction on the part of various supposedly
interested parties, the 2002 Lord's review had negligible impact
on the UK's systematics base, and had appreciably less impact
than the 1992 Lord's review.
5. DOES FACILITATION
OR LONG-TERMISM
LIE AT
THE CORE
OF TAXONOMY?
5.1. The Association suspects that one of
the main reasons that there have been two full reviews (1992,
2002) and two interim reviews (1997, 2008) of the UK's systematic
biology base by the House of Lords, is the continued argument
that systematics in general, and taxonomy in particular, is a
"special case" and therefore merits equally special
treatment.
5.2. The many unusual features of taxonomic
research were summarised in HoL 2002 as being those characteristic
of an "enabling" (facilitating, foundation) science.
Although we do not deny this commonly expressed perspective, in
our view taxonomy differs from the majority of disciplines primarily
in being a science that requires long-term stability of activity
and funding. Taxonomic skills take a long time to acquire. The
outputs (floras/floras and monographs) remain scientifically highly
relevant for a long time but equally they take a long time to
produce; they may be better accumulated gradually through time
in an electronic environment. Such databases take a long time
to fill with sufficient data to become sufficiently useful to
justify the investment. Also, the most important applications
of the resulting data, such as monitoring climate change, ecosystem
dynamics and population-level evolution, require a substantially
longer time-scale to address than is typically accommodated by
funding bodies (or by particular government policies).
5.3. The majority of the issues raised by
the decline of British taxonomy therefore, present a broader challenge
to policy-makers and funders—specifically, whether the UK
is sufficiently committed to the more general category of long-term
scientific research. The laudable leadership recently shown by
the British government in publicising and addressing global climate
change—the archetypal long-term challenge—should provide
an unparalleled impetus for all relevant bodies to collaborate
in solving the crucial general issue of how to reliably maintain
long-term research programmes. However, we note that, as one corollary
to long-termism, many of the potential remedies will inevitably
take a long time to yield their full benefits.
6. PRELIMINARY
COMMENTS REGARDING
THE PRESENT
LORDS QUESTIONNAIRE
6.1. As with the original House of Lords
report, the Association has some reservations regarding whether
the present set of questions posed by the Select Committee encompass
the entire range of crucial challenges currently facing systematic
biology. Thus, although we have, as requested, used the Committee's
questions as the framework of our response, we have subsequently
summarised some additional issues and principles that we believe
are of particular importance, as well as recommending a small
number of key actions that we believe would most effectively remedy
current deficiencies in the discipline. We recognise that this
document is unusually long for a parliamentary response. In our
defence, we note that (a) this enquiry strikes to the heart of
the Association's raison d'etre and (b) that we have in effect
been set 30 questions to answer, as well as wishing to raise a
few additional key issues that we believe have been overlooked
by the Select Committee.
6.2. The Association should also state at
the outset that it regrets that the majority of its responses
to the following questions are often based on anecdotal evidence.
The Association has argued since before the 2002 Lords review
that a comprehensive survey of the UK's systematics base is urgently
needed, to compare with that conducted by the UK Systematics Forum
in 1994/5 and published in 1996. The most recent relevant post-1996
output is the UK Taxonomic Needs Assessment, prepared by the Natural
History Museum on behalf of the Global Taxonomy Initiative in
February 2006, but this survey involved a limited sampling of
both producers and users of systematic information, and considered
only taxonomy rather than the full breadth of systematic biology.
The (present) state of systematics and taxonomy
research
7. Q1. (a) What is the state of systematics
research and taxonomy in the UK? (b) What are the current research
priorities? (c) What are the barriers, if any, to delivering these
priorities?
7.1. We cannot give a definitive account
to Q1A because of the lack of strong current baseline data. The
answer should consider four main areas of activity; morphological
and molecular approaches, respectively, to phylogeny reconstruction,
and taxonomic description and identification. Current evidence
suggests that molecular phylogenetics is the best supported and
thus most rapidly expanding discipline, in part because it is
being widely pursued in the university sector as well as in the
major institutions. Surprisingly, molecular taxonomy ("bar-coding"),
which is rapidly expanding in some other countries, has found
relatively little favour with the major funding bodies in the
UK, despite our strong initial contributions and continued enthusiasm
among practitioners (see Q6). Morphological phylogenetics appears
to be diminishing, having been replaced in some programmes by
molecular phylogenetics. The area of greatest concern continues
to be classical morphological taxonomy, where both the number
of the practitioners (especially professionals), and the average
amount of time spent on practical taxonomy by each remaining practitioner,
continue to decline.
7.2. With regard to Q1B, although the Association
can (and has) developed its own prioritisation of major research
areas, and has highlighted a few of the most relevant in this
document, it cannot justly claim to speak for the discipline as
a whole. In general, there have been far too many systematics-related
initiatives during the last decade at every scale (national, European,
global), thereby diluting effort, slowing progress and eventually
prompting ingrained cynicism. And the systematics community has
itself been surprisingly slow in reacting to changes of emphasis
at the policy level that directly affect its applied user groups,
most notably the scientific enthusiasm for climate change studies
that preceded the Stern report and the political enthusiasm that
followed it.
7.3. In addition, systematists have continually
found difficulty in agreeing the criteria for prioritisation among
projects. Relevant issues that are still widely debated include
(a) is it necessary to address specific scientific hypotheses,
(b) if so, which kinds of hypotheses are most important, and (c)
should those hypotheses be selected proactively by the systematics
community to satisfy its own needs or reactively, in response
to expressed needs of the many user-communities? We must also
decide (d) which are the most appropriate taxonomic groups for
addressing those hypotheses, and (e) which are the most appropriate
methods for analysing those groups to yield the necessary data?
7.4. These issues are discussed most acutely
in taxonomy, where there is a strategic dichotomy between two
schools of thought that could be termed encyclopaedists and integrationists.
Encyclopaedists believe that priority should be given to beginning
to fill the many vast gaps in our current taxonomic knowledge.
They are inspired by frequent statements that estimates of the
number of species on Earth generally exceed 10 million, whereas
only approximately 1.7 million species have so far been described
(and that at the current rate of description it will take 200-500
years to complete these descriptions). This school of thought
is driven by the urgency instilled by the biodiversity crisis,
and more specifically by the belief (most likely correct) that
species are currently becoming extinct more rapidly than they
are being described. Moreover, the questions addressed are so
broad and simple (ie does a particular species exist, and how
many species presently occur on Earth?) that some observers will
not accept them as bona fide scientific hypotheses. The integrationist
viewpoint gives greater emphasis to more specific hypothesis-testing
and to the requirements of our user-groups. It recognises that
although taxonomic description is an essential first step to any
biological study, robust recommendations regarding practical issues
such as conservation, ecosystem services and climate change monitoring
and remediation cannot be made until a great deal more is known
about a particular species than its name. Key criteria include
its appearance, anatomy, mode of reproduction, behaviour, genetics,
habitat preferences, distribution, evolutionary relationships
with other related species and ecological relationships with other,
generally unrelated, species. The integrationist mind-set implies
a closer relationship between taxonomy and other related disciplines,
and a belief that a considerable depth of knowledge is a necessary
pre-requisite for effective human intervention in complex biological
systems.
7.5. Question 1C is best addressed by questioning
why taxonomy in particular has all but disappeared from the UK
university sector. British universities have been impressively
(and destructively) homogenised during the last two decades by
the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE)—specifically, by
its emphasis of a small number of arbitrary targets. The present
route to success for an academic relies heavily on just two criteria—the
ability to publish just one paper a year in a journal of high
impact factor (ideally, Nature or Science) and the
accumulation on behalf of their host institution,a large amount
of overhead that now accompanies most research grants. In addition,
in order to reduce administration costs and to encourage more
integrated science through team building, most major funding bodies
have adopted a Big Science strategy. They allocate smaller numbers
of larger grants, though these remain typically three years in
duration and never more than five; moreover, grants are most readily
made large by proposing expensive, high-tech approaches to particular
problems, irrespective of whether the question could be solved
using a lower-tech solution. The target-based approach to managing
the UK's science has had profound negative effects across the
science base, encouraging low productivity from individual grants
and the mutual back-scratching inherent in publishing cartels.
However, the most serious damage of holding all researchers to
the same few assessment criteria, is the inevitable homogeneity
of their response when chasing these arbitrary targets. The ability
of the UK's science base to support disciplines that do not readily
fit the prescribed mould has inevitably collapsed.
7.6. Sadly, few if any disciplines fit the
mould as poorly as does taxonomy. With the arguable exception
of pilot schemes in DNA bar-coding and automated identification
(see Q6), taxonomy is a low-tech activity. The greatest actual
cost is the salary of the taxonomist, and the greatest hidden
cost is the considerable period of time needed for that taxonomist
to reach the desired levels of skill and knowledge. Further (and
generally hidden) costs, often resented by university administrators,
are likely to be incurred if the taxonomist's collections require
curation. At present, the typical outputs of taxonomy are either
geographically restricted faunas/floras or taxonomically restricted
monographs. Each such output takes far longer to produce than
a single grant from an existing scheme would permit. These are
produced either as infrequently generated books or as series of
frequently generated shorter articles in journals that are of
low impact and rarely cited (though, unlike most science, they
can remain valid and current for centuries). Such kinds of output
are effectively invisible to the RAE. A more modern approach to
disseminating taxonomic information, adopted with enthusiasm by
the 2002 HoL report, seeks to largely replace these traditional
outputs with electronic equivalents. At present, these kinds of
output are equally invisible to the RAE. In addition, there remains
a widespread perception (one that is increasingly inaccurate)
that taxonomists are too individualistic to make good team members.
Moreover, some grant-awarding bodies hold rather parochial views
of teams, considering them to operate within single organisations
and thus effectively ignoring the fact that electronic communication
has permitted researchers world-wide to become strongly networked.
In summary, taxonomy is cheap science that offers good value for
money, traits that mean it is heavily penalised by the tyranny
of the RAE. We had hoped that the succeeding Research Excellence
Framework (REF) would prove more amenable, but its current draft
form suggests an equally damaging obsession with short-term citation.
8. Q2. (a) 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? (b) How important is this contribution
and how is it recognised in the funding process? (c) How is systematics
integrated in other areas of research?
8.1. Terminological rigour is especially
crucial in answering Q2A, which depends on understanding the interrelationships
between several research disciplines (see Figure). After establishing
the framework of systematic biology in Section 3, and before considering
below the broader applications of systematic data, we emphasise
here that systematic biology is an intellectually rigorous discipline
in its own right, and that its success should not therefore be
wholly dependent on its immediate applications. In particular,
comparative biology is the source of most of our knowledge on
evolutionary patterns and processes. Nonetheless, we recognise
that the interests of the present enquiry are likely to be applications
in general and climate-change issues in particular. We also wish
to emphasise that the user communities still inevitably make occasional
unreasonable demands on existing taxonomic knowledge. One of the
most common fallacies is to prefer classifications that are (a)
fixed and/or (b) built upon relatively flat hierarchies (eg focus
on species at the expense of infraspecific taxa). Such static
approaches remove the scientific element of taxonomy by discouraging
further evolution of classification in response to an increasing
range and quantity of relevant data.
8.2. It is difficult to conceive how high-priority
applied disciplines such as biodiversity assessment/ conservation,
ecosystem services/ sustainability, and monitoring/ remediation
of climate change could even be discussed in the absence of the
framework provided by the formal names and ranks inherent in taxonomic
classifications. As is widely stated, taxonomy is, in this sense,
an "enabling" science. However, when passed through
the interpretative filters of other disciplines, both within systematics
(eg phylogenetics, evolutionary biology) and immediately adjacent
to systematics (eg ecology), it becomes an interpretative science
that is competent to offer constructive advice on these high-profile,
socially engaged issues. Thus, maintaining effective communicative
and collaborative links among these disciplines is crucial to
making effective practical use of systematics data.
8.3. Many initiatives at different hierarchical
scales have been established in attempts to improve communication
and collaboration. They have achieved varying degrees of success,
but overall, there have been too many such initiatives and they
have failed to garner sufficiently widespread or committed support.
Such initiatives are still badly needed, but it is important that
lessons are learned from past mistakes, and that the relevant
government(s) offer sufficient inducements to encourage stronger
commitment from systematists, researchers in related disciplines
and more applied user groups.
8.4. While there has been a superfluity
of schemes designed to improve networking, the number of institutions
operating within the UK that are capable of generating taxonomic
data has fallen, most notably in the university sector. At the
same time, the number of institutions that applied these data
to practical problems such as biodiversity monitoring has also
declined (eg the recent rationalisation of NERC's Centre for Ecology
and Hydrology). Arguably the best way to monitor climate change
would be to closely link taxonomically competent institutes to
ecologically competent institutes, yet in recent years the UK
has suffered severe reductions in both constituencies.
8.5. Linkage between producers and users
of taxonomic information is especially important because, in the
current highly competitive funding environment, it is rare that
funds are awarded to activities that affect the desired practical
outcomes indirectly rather than directly. Partly for this reason,
phylogenetics and population genetics are currently substantially
better funded than taxonomy. Moreover, within taxonomy, it is
currently easier to fund dissemination of existing knowledge than
generation of new knowledge. Reversing the long-term decline of
descriptive taxonomy will require radical actions, including:
ensuring better representation of systematists (especially taxonomists)
on grant-awarding panels; better integration of taxonomic work
into hypothesis-testing projects; assessment systems that give
appropriate credit for the outputs of descriptive taxonomy (monographs
and floras/faunas) in both the traditional printed and modern
electronic forms; establishing a stable funding basis for long-term
research in critical policy-related areas.
8.6. Lastly, we note that Q2A implicitly
under-estimates the number of key users of taxonomic information.
In addition to conservation, ecosystem services and climate change,
taxonomic research feeds critical information into attempts to
remediate the effects of damaging organisms such as invasive species
and pathogens of humans, domestic animals (including fisheries)
and crops.
9. Q3. (a) Does the way in which systematics
research is organised and co-ordinated best meet the needs of
the user community? (b) What progress has been made in setting
up a body to lead on this? (c) What contribution do the leading
systematics research institutions make, both nationally and internationally?
9.1. At present, the organisation and coordination
of the UK's systematics research base is far from optimal, reflecting
both the unwillingness of any particular body to take responsibility
for, and fund, a coordinatory body (Q3B) and the large number
and recalcitrant nature of the challenges faced. The community
is strongly influenced by several government departments and collectively
has many funding bodies; all are poorly communicative and have
goals that at best only partially overlap. The systematics base
is divided between dominantly professional and dominantly amateur
organisations, and active research is conducted at every conceivable
scale, from major institutes through regional centres to local
societies. It is our impression that these organisations have
actually become less well coordinated in recent years, as regional
and local governments have set their own (often conflicting) priorities
and organisations that were formed specifically to provide cohesion,
such as the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and National Biodiversity
Network, have been consistently under-funded.
9.2. Defra have failed to respond in any
meaningful way to the 2002 Lord's review requirement, that they
show leadership to Britain's systematics community. Six years
later, no action has been taken toward the Lord's 2002 recommendation
that "Defra takes the lead in setting up a body with the
express purpose of bringing together representatives from government
departments, ecologists and conservationists and the systematic
biology community" to guide the UK's biodiversity and conservation
efforts. When challenged by the Institute of Biology and Linnean
Society in 2006 to justify their chronic inactivity, Defra cancelled
a previously agreed discussion meeting and announced that "as
a result of the tight financial position in Defra, prioritisation
of our objectives and strategic outcomes has resulted in progress
in systematics falling below the threshold to command the necessary
resources." A similarly defensive reply was given to a query
from the Biosciences Federation and the Systematics Association
a year later. Given these responses, we can only reach the extraordinary
conclusion that Defra have failed to perceive the crucial connection
between the outputs of systematic biology and the critical areas
of government policy for which they are at least partly responsible,
such as agrarian diseases (and epidemics), remediation of environmental
degradation and, of course, climate change.
9.3. Despite the apparent lack of interest
from any relevant government department, the UK systematics community
could still have taken actions independently to improve coordination
and prioritisation of tasks. However, in the absence of government
guidance, the systematics community failed to organise itself
sufficiently well to establish priorities that reached beyond
individual organisations. None of the major research institutes
has shown strong interest in achieving this goal, and those discussions
that have taken place since HoL 2002 have been by no means inclusive;
smaller and/or dominantly amateur organisations, which play a
proportionately increasing role in taxonomy in particular, are
rarely included. The ideal coordinatory body would be led, or
at least chaired, by a broadly based independent organisation.
The Systematics Association is certainly willing in principle
to take on this task, but it would require funds to supplement
its present meagre resources.
9.4. The overall trend of the last two decades
has been for taxonomy to gradually diminish in the universities
and the user-groups of such information (eg the NERC institutes),
and to become relatively concentrated in the major systematics
institutes and the "amateur" sector. Phylogenetics has,
in contrast, spread from the major institutions into the university
sector, encouraged by its proven effectiveness and by the funding
priorities of the research councils. This in turn has understandably
encouraged greater emphasis on evolutionary biology in the major
systematics institutes, thereby effectively reducing the emphasis
on taxonomy. With the exception of the diminution of taxonomy
in the university sector, these trends have not necessarily had
effects that were negative overall. Nonetheless, it seems likely
that the bulk of the UK's taxonomic research is now conducted
in just three institutions: the Natural History Museum, and Royal
Botanic Gardens of Kew and Edinburgh.
9.5. This apparent centralisation of taxonomy
offers considerable advantages to coordinating and prioritising
work internally, but less effort has been made in recent years
to achieve these goals between the major institutes. In addition,
there has been diminishing encouragement of staff in these institutes
to show leadership to the many "amateur"-dominated societies
who now in practice generate the vast majority of the biodiversity
data produced for the UK. The Association is not convinced that
the many national and international schemes designed to improve
networking and data flow among systematists, and between systematists
and their many user-groups, have come close to achieving their
potential. We need to critically assess, and then select among,
such schemes, preferentially resourcing those of greatest potential.
The major institutes have a clear role to play in this strategic
process, but they need to take full account of the broader requirements
of the taxonomic community.
10. Q4. (a) What level of funding
would be needed to meet the need for taxonomic information now
and in the future? (b) Who should be providing this funding?
10.1. There is no straightforward answer
to Q4A. Several recent statements have suggested that it will
take at least 200 years at the present rate to give basic descriptions
of most of the species on Earth. One might therefore conclude
that the UK's contribution to this global endeavour could double
its speed if its funding base were to be doubled. Such an analysis
would actually be grossly simplistic, since the depth of knowledge
on species is important, and there is understandably increasing
emphasis on encouraging taxonomists to be better networked and
more interactive.
10.2. Much of the evidence offered to the
House of Lords review in 2002, singled out the UK research councils
(especially NERC and BBSRC) for particular criticism. The Association
believes that this widely held view was simplistic; the research
councils are inevitably held accountable to policies set by relevant
government departments, and ultimately to the Treasury. We also
sympathise with the belief long held by the research councils
that research funded through normal channels should be genuinely
hypothesis testing. Nonetheless, there have been very limited
gains in the enthusiasm shown by the Research Councils toward
systematics in general and taxonomy in particular. The Association,
supported by the Linnean Society, successfully initiated and now
administers CoSyst, a pump-priming small-grants scheme that received
total funding of £225,000 over three years (2007-9) from
BBSRC and moral support from NERC. The intention is that the successful
CoSyst proposals will ultimately lead to full responsive mode
proposals to the research councils, and the initial application
rates have been unexpectedly high (only 5.5 of 48 applications
could be funded in 2007, and a further 36 applications were received
in 2008). However, full responsive mode systematics applications
have long fallen down the cracks that separate the supposedly
overlapping remits of the research councils, and in practice they
continue to bounce like footballs between councils. Proposals
containing more than a modest amount of taxonomy still do not
receive funding, and the councils still appoint very few systematists,
and no classical taxonomists, in their grant-awarding panels.
It also remains difficult to gain funding from most likely sources
for the cost of curating and/or databasing materials used for
taxonomic studies. The Systematics Association and Linnean Society
together, address a further funding gap by offering small grants
of up to £1500 toward a wide range small-scale systematics
projects (in 2007, the total available spend of £36,000 funded
37 of 98 applications; in 2008, applications have risen yet again,
to 140, yet the previous annual contribution of £5,000 from
NERC has been withdrawn). Thus, there remain substantive issues
that the research councils should address urgently.
10.3. If we are disappointed by inaction
in the funding area by the research councils, we are even more
disappointed by certain actions that have been taken. In
particular, both NERC and BBSRC have pursued long-term rationalisation
programmes of the research institutes for which they provide substantial
core funding. The relatively recent rationalisation of NERC's
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (including the closure of research
institutes such as Monks Wood and Windermere) inevitably reduced
the effectiveness with which taxonomic data is deployed to monitor
and, where possible remedy, environmental change. The systematics
community is constantly encouraged to disseminate its information
to key users, but this laudable goal is made far more challenging
when critical users of that information are eliminated.
10.4. The Association has long noted that
the British systematics community relies on funding from an exceptional
diversity of sources. The three largest systematics institutes
in the country (in order of decreasing size the Natural History
Museum, Royal Botanic Gardens Kew and Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh)
each still gains at least half of its recurrent funding from a
different government department (DCMS, Defra, and the Scottish
Executive's RERAD, respectively). This diversity offers some buffering
against the vicissitudes of allocations to these departments by
the Treasury, as few external phenomena can affect all three organisations
simultaneously. However, it complicates any attempt to develop
stable joint initiatives among these institutes, and leaves each
at the mercy of often radically contrasting policy priorities
that must be met if even modest levels of core funding are to
continue.
10.5. The Association is especially disappointed
with the performance of Defra in recent years, over and above
their inaction with regard to establishing a new coordinatory
body for UK systematics (Q3B). We recognise that Defra has been
obliged to respond rapidly to a series of resource-sapping, agriculturally-related
crises, some caused by epidemics and others by suboptimal administration.
However, Defra do not appear to have perceived the link between
these epidemics and our ability to identify, predict and remedy
their causes—activities that rely heavily on information
and techniques that are central to systematic biology. They have
significantly reduced core funding of the one major research institute
for which they hold direct responsibility, RBG Kew. They suspended
payment the funds promised for the current round of Darwin Initiative
grants, thus undermining a globally respected initiative designed
to allow British researchers to provide practical assistance on
biodiversity and human welfare issues, targeted especially at
communities in developing countries. They have reduced funding
to organisations that help to translate systematic data into practical
outcomes within the UK, notably JNCC and the Environment Agency.
Such decisions make it far more difficult for systematists to
deploy their outputs as components of practical, socially applicable
programmes.
10.6. If, as we have argued, reliable long-term
funding is the single most critical need for improving the UK's
taxonomic base, substantial changes need to be made in the way
that funding is apportioned. At present, typical funding periods
from both government funders (eg the research councils) and independent
charity funders (eg the Wellcome and Leverhulme Trusts) is three
years. There have been welcome signs that five-year funding may
be considered more seriously in future (the most encouraging being
the development of substantial five-year "Lola" grants
by BBSRC). In our view, both the fundamental taxonomic enterprise
itself, and the uses that feed off that fundamental data (eg monitoring
biodiversity to assess the effects of climate change), need guaranteed
core funding for periods measured in decades rather than years.
We therefore recommend that research funders and relevant government
departments convene a novel body to develop an initiative that
will guarantee such funding, by pooling resources from multiple
sources toward a mutually agreed set of biodiversity-related goals.
Any such initiative should distinguish clearly between (a) conducting
creative taxonomy, (b) disseminating existing taxonomic information
(including identification), and (c) more applied uses of systematic
information.
11. Q5. (a) How does funding in other
countries compare? (b) Could there be more international collaboration?
(c) If so, what form should this collaboration take and how might
it be achieved?
11.1. During the 19th century and first
half of the 20th century, the global centre of gravity for systematics
research lay firmly in Europe. In the second part of the 20th
century, the phylogenetics revolution was primarily driven by
Europe and North America (focused on the Natural History Museum,
London and the American Museum of Natural History, New York).
However, in the last decade in particular, the USA has invested
far more heavily in its general systematics base (as assessed
on both absolute and per capita measures) than have European countries.
In particular, the American National Science Foundation invited
a series of systematists to work for them for several years to
establish a complementary suite of programmes covering phylogenetics
(Assembling the Tree of Life: AToL), species descriptions, biodiversity
inventories and collections enhancement (Planetary Biodiversity
Inventory: PBI), and training young taxonomists (Partnerships
in Enhancing Expertise in Taxonomy: PEET). These schemes have
benefited, both directly and indirectly, collaborators in other
countries, including the UK. The Australian Biological Resources
Study (ABRS) also attracts substantial government funding. The
EU-funded European Distributed Institute for Taxonomy (EDIT),
a relatively recent innovation, is built on far more modest basis
than its broader US and Antipodean equivalents. Other countries
have chosen to focus their investments on specific activities,
such as DNA bar-coding in Canada and bacterial systematics in
South Korea.
11.2. Major international collaborations
such as the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) tend
to be handicapped by the expectation (possibly the necessity)
that one country (or one organisation within that country) should
take the lead role in that initiative. The commitment to that
initiative of the other subordinate countries tends to be reduced,
often ultimately leading to that country developing a similar
initiative that it can then claim to lead.
11.3. Thus, although developing international
collaborations remains an important goal, improving international
communication among systematists is a more straightforward goal.
This is the simple way to avoid duplication of effort and to improve
complementarity among research projects across the globe. Such
communication has also brought considerable benefits in the area
of standards—for example, data spectrum and quantity, database
platforms, collection curatorial standards, shared analytical
protocols, common conceptual frameworks. And such international
networking belies frequent statements, fuelled by a now ubiquitous
Big Science ethos, that critical masses of researchers (and curators)
within specific institutes are essential, such that the traditional
concept of individualistic taxonomists should be superseded in
the modern research environment. Rather, the modern research environment,
increasingly dominated by the mixed blessing of electronic communication,
means that no systematists need operate in isolation, irrespective
of their physical location. The opportunity exists to make successful
on a long-term basis one or more integrated, yet flexible, international
networks in systematic biology. This goal requires comparative
assessment followed by prioritisation.
12. Q6. (a) What impact have developments
in DNA sequencing, genomics and other new technologies had on
systematics research? (b) In what way has systematics embraced
new technologies and how can these research areas interact successfully
and efficiently?
12.1. This question is best answered by
distinguishing between molecular and morphological approaches.
Within the DNA sequencing realm, two main categories of technology
are being explored. The first, for long forecast by several distinguished
proponents (not least Lord May), is the pocket-sized sequencer.
The American military recently demonstrated to the Association
at its Biennial Conference that they have already effectively
achieved this goal, having produced a portable field device that
can sequence a chosen region of the genome for about 100 specimens
within ten minutes. At present the device is the size of a laptop
computer and requires the stability of an environment such as
the back of a vehicle, but it is predicted to shrink to genuinely
pocket size within a year. It should soon be possible for field
surveyors to analyse a significant number of samples in the field
and use satellite technology to compare the resulting DNA sequences
with databases such as Genbank, and thus to obtain probability
statements regarding the identification of the organisms while
still in the field. We note that these techniques can readily
be applied to juvenile, senescent or otherwise non-reproductive
organisms that fail to show crucial diagnostic characters of their
morphology, or to the many organisms (most relatively primitive)
that show little morphological differentiation at any stage in
their life histories (on the negative side, higher animals tend
to evade field sampling). In short, field-based DNA identification
is within reach. The question is less whether the technology exists
than when it will become available (a) to non-military researchers
and (b) to field surveyors at an affordable price (past experiences
with GPS technology suggest that it could occur within five years).
12.2. However, exaggerated claims have been
made regarding the efficacy of DNA bar-coding/ DNA taxonomy, which
is liable to be constrained less by the sequencing technology
than by the nature of the data held in the databases. Although
Genbank is by far the best-populated and best-maintained database
relevant to systematic biology, it remains deficient in both quantity
and quality of data. Even most described species remain wholly
unrepresented in the molecular databases, and a significant proportion
of the sequences that have been entered into the database have
been misidentified, often because the relevant taxonomic expertise
was unavailable or otherwise not consulted when sampling took
place. In addition, thus far there has been insufficient exploration
of the range of genetic variation exhibited within species, to
determine how likely a novel sequence is likely to represent a
novel species. In our view, DNA taxonomy has revolutionised systematic
studies of organisms that truly show little if any morphology,
but for the remainder of the Earth's biota, it is the combination
of morphological and DNA data obtained from the same organisms
that permits genuine understanding and explanation.
12.3. Parallel improvements in sequencing
protocols and robotics, driven in part by the human genome project,
have combined to permit an exponential increase in the number
and diversity of sequences available to systematists. These have
proven especially influential in the fields of population genetics
and molecular phylogenetics. An important debate is currently
gaining momentum within molecular phylogenetics circles between
proponents of an analytical strategy that analyses a modest but
well-chosen range of genes for a large number of species and approaches
that analyse entire genomes (in eukaryotes this is the nucleus,
inherited from both parents, or more often the plastids or mitochondria,
usually inherited from only one parent), inevitably encompassing
a much smaller range of species. As sequencing technology advances
further, this debate will become less polarised. The main challenges
will become (a) dealing statistically with the massive volumes
of data generated, and (b) understanding better the biological
implications of these genetic data, not least their mode of expression
within organisms (thus linking genomics to another rapidly expanding
biological field, proteomics).
12.4. Some current research projects are
attempting to emulate the increasing automation of DNA-based systematics
in morphology-based systematics, using automated image-recognition
systems. These have shown promise thus far, albeit within relatively
narrow taxonomic ranges (eg comparing the wing patterns of mosquitoes).
Informed opinion is currently divided regarding how much further
promise such systems hold for taxonomy. A more pragmatic approach
has been developed that uses imaging technology to interface with
taxonomic experts. A problematic organism, such as a parasite,
can be imaged in 2D or even pseudo-3D in the field and then the
image sent electronically to a specialist to aid in identification.
Similarly, a critical type specimen in a museum collection can
be imaged and sent to the field worker for comparison. However,
such approaches are labour-intensive, and tie up the taxonomist
in relatively low-level identification procedures—in other
words, in using taxonomies rather than creating and improving
them. The American military has simplified such a system, by providing
field-based para-taxonomists with organism identification guides
that can be projected onto the interior of a sophisticated visor,
allowing them to compare electronic images with the problematic
organisms placed literally under their noses.
12.5. Overall, the Association believes
that the systematics community has maintained a sensibly pragmatic
attitude to technological innovation. This is a considerable achievement,
because recent debates could easily have become polarised between
(a) enthusiastic advocates of technological fixes who exaggerate
the potential of any new technique before it has been adequately
explored, and (b) the views still expressed by many sceptics within
the systematics (and especially the taxonomic) community that
only conventional approaches yield data that will stand the test
of time. However, the Association believes that the UK had the
opportunity to show stronger global leadership in initiating and
developing such innovations, but that progress has been avoidably
slow due to the reluctance of funding bodies to endorse sufficiently
ambitious pilot studies to determine the all-important boundaries
inherent to these novel approaches. Greater commitment to technological
innovation is therefore recommended (as strongly advocated in
DUIS policy), along with better coordination among organisations
so that several smaller pilot projects can more often be superseded
by a single networked project.
Data collection, management, maintenance and dissemination
13. Q7. (a) Does the way in which
taxonomic data is collected, managed and maintained best meet
the needs of the user community? (b) What is the state of local
and national recording schemes?
13.1. As a generalisation, databases are
of limited value until they have been populated with the bulk
of the information that they are intended to contain. It is therefore
especially unfortunate that it has long been, and remains, relatively
easy to obtain external funding for the establishment of a new
database (especially a meta-database intended to give greater
cohesion and/or user-friendliness to several existing specialist
databases) but in contrast it is extremely difficult to fund the
costs of populating those databases to the point where they become
cost-effective. It has also proven feasible to fund the establishment
of databases at several different levels (institutional, local,
national, European, global). The net result has been a proliferation
of databases that often overlap considerably in objectives and/or
content. Attempts to coordinate or unify content, presentation,
platform, or other crucial properties have been handicapped by
the proliferation of the databases and the lack of carrots or
sticks sufficient to strongly encourage adherence to such standards.
The number and diversity of databases mean that ease of access
to data can be problematic for any user-group, including systematists
themselves, unless they have prior knowledge of the range of databases
available and are asking very specific questions.
13.2. In many cases, the justifications
put forward for developing meta-databases have been undesirably
weak. Perhaps the most important factor is whether any particular
database can be accessed via the Internet. If so, it can usually
be located reasonably easily by intelligent use of a search engine
such as Google. There is no doubt that meta-databases can greatly
enhance ease of access to the relevant data, but this can be achieved
most effectively by applying standards and standardisation both
to the databases, thereby improving their interconnectivity, and
to the data themselves, thereby improving their quality and reliability.
In other words, a widely recognised validation procedure is highly
desirable. Overall, improving the quantity and quality of data
available in the Internet is arguably at least as important as
improving its user-friendliness.
13.3. As noted under 12.2, by far the most
influential database currently available that underpins systematics
(and many other disciplines) is Genbank. This has befitted from
many years of evolution and data-population, though even here
the reliability of the data is mediocre. But the main secret of
its success has been the decision by most relevant journal editors
to make submission of DNA sequence data to Genbank a pre-requisite
for publication of the resulting research papers. It is this compulsion
that has allowed both standardisation of, and rapid population
with, data. Attempts to establish similar systems for various
kinds of morphological systematic data (eg Morphobank, Morphbank)
have been far less successful, because (a) fewer such data are
now generated, (b) the journals that publish such data are less
influential, and (c) very few of those journals have made deposition
of the underlying data compulsory. Britain could show a lead in
this area by identifying a suitable international morphological
database for further development as the preferred repository,
ensuring that appropriate standards of data content and validation
are established and that UK-based journals identify that database
as the preferred repository.
13.4. Bacterial systematists have taken
the radical step of identifying a single journal as the outlet
for all new taxonomic descriptions of their organisms. This centralisation
permits easy detection of trends in bacterial taxonomy (notably
the rapid rise of South Korea at the expense of the UK, which
now contributes only 3 per cent of the world's new bacterial descriptions),
though we believe that it would be impossible to impose such a
restriction on the larger volume and greater diversity of taxonomic
works encompassing groups of more complex organisms. However,
a more pragmatic suggested change is increasingly debated within
taxonomic circles—specifically, whether a single centralised
repository should be identified for all newly described taxa,
and whether registration of new taxa in that repository should
be made compulsory. The weight of opinion within the systematics
community appears to be shifting toward this idea. Again, the
UK systematics community could lead the international community
in identifying a suitable repository for Linnean names and making
their registration a firm requirement.
13.5. Each major group of organisms (eg
animals, plants, bacteria) has long had its own legalistic code
dictating how those organisms are classified and named. Each of
these codes has evolved to suit that particular group of organisms,
but now there is an understandable desire to unify (or at least
bring closer together) the content of those codes, and to modernise
them to better accommodate more recent data sources such as DNA
sequences, and to be made fully compatible will electronic publication
of taxonomic data. UK-based systematists have long had a strong
influence over the content of these codes. Thus, development of
a unified view within the UK regarding the most appropriate route
to unification would have a good chance of influencing the (often
conservative) international bodies that regulate the codes.
13.6. With regard to Q7B, Britain's biodiversity
is better known than that of any other country. Most local and
national recording schemes for biodiversity data are run increasingly
by amateur (or retired professional) systematists. Even where
actively employed systematists are directly involved, in most
cases their contribution is made in their own time, without encouragement
or recognition from their employer. Most of these schemes are
poorly resourced, and many are experiencing increasing difficulties
obtaining funding at a time when demands for data are increasingly
rapidly. It does not help that the government department most
closely associated with the majority of the schemes (Defra) has
proven especially unpredictable in its resource allocations, due
in part to its vulnerability major spends in response to various
environmental/ agricultural crises. This has undermined the activities
of organisations such as Joint Nature Conservation Committee and
the Environment Agency. The recent rationalisation and reduced
resourcing of NERC's research institutes constituting the Centre
for Ecology and Hydrology has also negatively affected national
recoding schemes.
13.7. At the local level, the UK gradually
built up a network of County Biological Records Centres during
the latter part of the 20th century, feeding into (and funded
primarily by) local government. Many of these CBRCs became highly
effective, but for reasons that the Association does not fully
understand, the network has been in decline for several years,
and several CBRCs have become moribund. This has placed even more
reliance for national biodiversity recording on the many specialist
societies, which play critical roles in biodiversity recording
and assessment. They are most commonly populated by highly skilled
and experienced but ageing amateurs, acting voluntarily. Such
groups cannot (and should not) have their priorities dictated
externally, either by government or by umbrella organisations
such as the National Biodiversity Network. Sensitivity is required
in several areas. At a practical level, new technologies such
as electronic recording systems should be introduced carefully,
after being rendered maximally user-friendly. At the political
level, these increasingly rare generators of primary data (as
opposed to synthesisers of other people's data) need to be given
full credit for their efforts; credit (and resources) rarely pass
unmolested from the top down, through increasingly complex recording
networks, to the shop floor. And where professional systematists
are involved in such schemes, they are unlikely to receive credit
from their employers, especially where those employers are universities
held in thrall to the RAE. In short, greater political and practical
emphasis needs to be given to individuals and schemes that focus
more on generating new systematic data than on recycling old data.
14. Q8. (a) What is the role of the
major regional museums and collections? (b) How are taxonomic
collections curated and funded?
14.1. The multiplicity of roles fulfilled
by the larger regional museums possessing natural history collections
(and botanic gardens/zoos possessing living and preserved collections)
makes them especially difficult organisations to manage. Together
with other biological records centres they provide a vital focus
for local, regional and national natural history organisations,
and thus for biodiversity recording and monitoring. Clearly, they
play a vital role in education, from interested members of the
public through to at least undergraduate level. Higher education
roles are particularly important in cases where associations have
been forged with universities—universities that today are
unlikely to employ taxonomists, and so increasingly rely on museum
staff for expert advice and/or tuition. As noted above (Q5B, C),
the argument requiring a local "critical mass" of taxonomists
does not withstand close inspection; it is extremely important
that students in biology and related disciplines are exposed to
systematics and taxonomic concepts, but far less important which
particular taxonomic group is pursued by that particular researcher
in that particular post.
14.2. One can also argue that there is even
greater reason to digitise smaller research collections than larger,
because (a) it is a more tractable task and (b) they are likely
to attract fewer physical visits. However, in this context, digitisation
is a double-edged sword, because collections in general, and regional
collections in particular, rely heavily on physical visits by
specialists to modernise that naming and arrangement of their
collections—in other words, for the most creative aspects
of curation. In addition, as the staffs in regional institutions
diminish in number, dominantly reactive educational and identification
roles often detrimentally displace more proactive research initiatives
that would increase the academic profile of the institute, particularly
where the majority of departments in the institute are not required
to pursue academic research.
14.3. In this context, programmes that fund
physical visits from international researchers for research and/or
skills acquisition have been well-subscribed and successful in
their aims, even though inevitably they have preferentially benefited
institutions holding the largest collections. The concomitant
influx of expertise and modest finances into an organisation,
such as that achieved through the long-running (but near-ended),
EU-funded SyntheSys programme, can have a disproportionately beneficial
impact on the organisations concerned. Such programmes merit continuation
beyond SyntheSys, which has received its maximum number of renewals
and must now end.
14.4. Just as the larger systematics organisations
have primary relationships with different government departments,
the smaller organisations rely on a great diversity of sources
for their (usually modest) funding. Few of those sources are wholly
reliable long-term. Local and regional government often give relatively
low priority to such institutes, annually allocating resources
that are effectively residual, determined after funding for most
other areas of activity has already been decided. And externally
funded grants require much effort to obtain, are often relatively
small, and are never long-term. It is not surprising that maintaining
such organisations and associated collection has proven so challenging
over the last two decades, and has led to many casualties.
14.5. However, it is instructive to see
what has happened when organisations have made conscious decisions
to attempt to revitalise their collections-based research. For
example, both Oxford and Cambridge Universities considered donating
at least some of their natural history collections to other, even
larger collection holders. Instead, decisions were ultimately
made to enhance the housing of these collections and to encourage
greater activity associated with those collections. In the case
of Cambridge, one outcome is the current construction of an ambitious
and well-funded plant diversity research institute within the
botanic garden. Similarly positive decisions need to be encouraged
in other organisations that have less ready access to substantial
resources.
15. Q9. (a) What progress has been
made in developing a web-based taxonomy? (b) How do such initiatives
fit in with meeting demand for systematics and taxonomy information?
(c) How do UK-led initiatives fit in with international initiatives
and is there sufficient collaboration?
15.1. In many ways, the issues facing web-based
taxonomy mirror those facing web-based systematics databases in
general. Consequently, several of our more detailed answers to
Q7A also apply to Q9 and Q10. With regard to Q9A and Q9C, the
enthusiasm shown in the 2002 Lords report for web-based taxonomy
helped to accelerate an already expanding debate among systematists
and their user-groups regarding how best to pursue taxonomy on
the web. Several pilot projects have been developed under the
auspices of the Planetary Biodiversity Inventory (PBI) in the
US and in Europe the Distributed Institute for Taxonomy (EDIT;
see 11.1). Once again, the main project operating within the UK
is far more modestly funded (by NERC): Creating an e-Taxonomy
(CATE). And once again, the corresponding global initiative (in
this case, the Encyclopedia of Life; EoL) is experiencing difficulties
in attracting sufficient resources and the necessary political
momentum.
15.2. Over the last five years, discussions
have led to better understanding of the relative usefulness of
different categories of data and the standards needed to ensure
quality of data. There have also been significant technological
advances in how such data are stored and electronically distributed.
Static texts, images and keys can readily be mounted, though more
interactive systems (eg interactive keys or Wikipedia-style modifiable
classifications) remain technically challenging. However, we have
now reached a state where theory is arguably stronger than practice.
Those standards and prioritisations should be more widely applied,
and the taxonomic databases adequately populated. The internationally
binding nomenclatural codes need to be revised and brought closer
together in order to better accommodate electronic descriptions,
and a very small number of web-based initiatives need to be identified
as primary repositories, ideally on a global rather than a national
scale. UK initiatives have paid much greater attention to (and
often informed) European and global programmes, suggesting that
international collaboration is indeed improving (Q9C). It is achieving
international agreement that remains the greatest challenge to
genuinely global web-based taxonomy.
15.3. Similarly, it is important to recognise
the constraints on web-based taxonomy and identification. Although
web-based taxonomy can be a boon to utilising taxonomies (notably
to rapid identification), its benefits to creating taxonomies
(ie description and revision) and curating reference collections
are less clear-cut. For example, digitised images of specimens
act as a valuable catalogue, informing a remote user which specimens
are available in which collections worldwide, but all of the detail
needed for rigorous taxonomic revisions is unlikely to be visible;
the specimen needs to be physically examined and perhaps sampled
(eg for microscopic characters or DNA analyses). The serendipitous
finds of relevant specimens in collections, and the improved curation
of those collections (eg improved identifications), that result
from the physical visit of a specialist to a collection are less
readily achieved remotely. Also, interaction among specialists
is most effective when they are present in the same room. In short,
physical visits and exchanges among taxonomic specialists will
continue to remain important; they can be enhanced, but not replaced,
by electronic consultation and dissemination.
15.4. The needs of the user communities
for systematics data remain largely anecdotal; a thorough survey
remains highly desirable. The most up-to-date data were gathered
in 2004, in a survey coordinated by the Natural History Museum
on behalf of the Global Taxonomy Initiative. The results were
undesirably narrow, since (a) they focus on taxonomy rather than
the broader discipline of systematics and (b) they consider primarily
the need for information to inform biodiversity conservation within
the UK. The resulting priorities surprised many systematists,
because all of the most commonly reported priorities focused on
geographical distribution and/or habitat preference (ie on the
composition of particular ecosystems) rather than on taxonomic
identification, which appeared relatively low on the prioritised
list. This reflects the fact that the British biota is the best
understood and best surveyed of any in the world, due to a combination
of many factors (small country, relatively low biodiversity due
to temperate location and recent glaciations, dense population,
unusually large proportion of amateur natural historians, unusually
large number of natural history societies). Consequently, identification
is less of a barrier to conservation in the UK than inadequate
understanding of the species and the ecosystems that they form
(here termed the "ecological impediment"). In other
words, there is more of a systematic and ecological impediment
than a taxonomic impediment in the (arguably unusual) case of
the UK. Of course, the taxonomic impediment will become more severe
as the number of skilled taxonomists in the UK continues to decline.
The taxonomic impediment remains more severe in developing countries,
leading to what might be termed the "ecological impediment"
to achieving effective social improvement schemes.
16. Q10. (a) What needs to be done
to ensure that web-based taxonomy information is of high quality,
reliable and user-friendly?
16.1. There is only one credible answer
to this question; experienced taxonomists need to first set and
then monitor, via authoritative peer review, standards for the
quality of the data in those databases identified by systematists
and user-groups as being most useful. This is in some ways unfortunate
because, like identification, monitoring of data quality diverts
taxonomists away from actively pursuing the more creative aspects
of taxonomy for which they are uniquely qualified, specifically
establishing and revising classifications. It emphasises the need
for a greater number of experienced taxonomists.
16.2. It has recently been argued that DNA
taxonomy (including DNA "bar-coding") can free taxonomy
from the need for much of the specialist knowledge inherent in
morphological taxonomy. However, apart from paucity of comparative
data, the greatest weakness of the databases that underpin DNA-based
identification is sequences attributed to the wrong name, because
the analyst lacked the skill and/or the determination needed to
identify the "yardstick organism" correctly. In many
cases, the organisms in question are not deposited in reference
collections, precluding other researchers with greater taxonomic
knowledge from subsequently checking, and then correcting, the
erroneous original identification. Thus, for all but the most
primitive groups of organisms (which exhibit comparatively little
morphological variation), cross-referencing between morphology-based
and DNA-based taxonomies will remain critical. DNA-based taxonomy
can only supplement morphology-based taxonomy; it cannot realistically
replace it.
17. Q11. (a) How does the taxonomic
community engage with the non-taxonomic community? (b) What role
do field studies play?
17.1. Due in part to the restrictive definition
we have employed, the majority of professional systematic biologists
currently operating in the UK are not primarily taxonomists. Thus,
in our view, taxonomists are most likely to interact with non-taxonomic
systematists, notably phylogeneticists, and then with the related
academic disciplines of evolutionary biology and ecology. However,
we suspect that the motivation behind this question is primarily
to explore how much progress has been made ensuring that taxonomic
products reach the users of taxonomy, particularly those addressing
increasingly high-priority environmental questions.
17.2. In this context, we would argue that
there is still considerable room for improvement in how taxonomic
data are fed into more applied disciplines. As previously discussed,
provision of raw taxonomic data to applied user communities is
unlikely to constitute effective delivery. Rather, the significance
of the information is likely to require explanation. Thus, in
some circumstances, feeding data through other disciplines (phylogenetics,
evolutionary biology, ecology) makes good academic use of the
data and also adds meaning to the data, thereby presenting the
applied user with a more rounded and intelligible understanding.
However, placing applied users more in control of their own destiny
is likely to accelerate the rate of progress of projects such
as climate-change monitoring. The more effort that users make
to understand both the concepts and terminology that underlie
taxonomy, the more successful collaborations with taxonomists
are likely to be, and the more readily information will pass from
"producer" to "consumer". Nonetheless, despite
the existence of several promising pilot projects, we have noted
a relative reluctance on behalf of both producers and consumers
to expend much time addressing these issues.
17.3. We now turn to Q11B. Anecdotal evidence
suggests that a remarkably high proportion of the current cadre
of systematic biologists entered the discipline as a result of
a series of connected positive experiences—most commonly,
inspiration from particular teachers/lecturers or media popularisers
such as David Attenborough, combined with increasing exposure
to natural habitats, together with living collections maintained
in zoos and/or botanic gardens and non-living collections in natural
history museums. Also, the relatively high proportion of amateur
natural historians within the UK, who often enter the field as
activists in their more mature years but nonetheless make important
contributions to biodiversity monitoring (eg via specialist societies
to the National Biodiversity Network), also generally gain interest
through field experiences. The two groups then constructively
interact when professionals volunteer to act as mentors, helping
to develop the skills of the amateurs. Field experience is vital
across a far wider range of natural history disciplines than systematic
biology, including ecology, conservation and various environmental
topics. It also helps researchers to comprehend the importance
of rigorous experimental design.
17.4. In addition, as was recently noted
in a policy paper issued by the Biosciences Federation, laboratory
studies of whole organisms (such as dissections and behavioural
studies) have suffered reductions of similar magnitude to field
studies, and remain equally important if students are to develop
an adequate understanding of organismal biology and natural history.
17.5. The Association is convinced that
the radical reduction over the past 25 years in fieldwork (in
its broadest sense) and in organismally-oriented laboratory studies,
particularly in schools (GCSE/A-level) and undergraduate courses,
does not reflect reduction in the inherent interest shown by students
in these activities. Rather, it reflects a combination of their
systematic elimination for curricula and the increasing unwillingness
of teachers/ lecturers to invest time in such enterprises in the
face of the cost implications and increasingly constraining health
and safety regulations. These practical constraints would most
likely be overridden if field studies figured more prominently
in the relevant curricula, which would also assist the surviving
field studies centres.
Skills base
18. Q12. (a) What are the numbers
and ages of trained taxonomists working in UK universities and
other organisations?
18.1. Again, precise figures are badly needed
in order to give definitive answers to this and similar questions.
However, the anecdotal evidence is sufficiently strong to give
a clear overview. We are confident that the number of researcher
(and curator) hours being devoted to taxonomic activity have declined
greatly throughout the last half-century, and this decline is
ongoing. This is partly because of the number of practising taxonomists
in the UK has steadily fallen, but also for a reason that is rarely
discussed—the remaining taxonomists (particularly those
in employment) are obliged to spend decreasing amounts of their
time actively engaged in taxonomic research. Over the last half-century
we have seen the focus of the UK's professional taxonomic activity
shift first from the universities and wide range of national and
local-government-sponsored institutes to a small number of government-sponsored
institutes (notably the Natural History Museum and the Royal Botanic
Gardens of Kew and Edinburgh). Even here, overall taxonomic effort
has declined (see evidence presented by the Linnean Society).
At present, the relative role of researchers not in paid employment
is increasing, as the dwindling number of remaining taxonomists
age and retire (admittedly, in many cases they remain active long
after retirement).
18.2. The experiences of recently retired
taxonomists help to illustrate the second cause of the reduction
of overall taxonomic activity in the UK. Very often, the productivity
of taxonomists substantially increases upon their retirement.
This reflects the diversion of skilled taxonomists time away from
taxonomic description and revision towards a host of other activities.
Decreases in curatorial staff mean that taxonomists generally
have inadequate staff support and must curate their own specimens.
They are often responsible for various dissemination initiatives
such as specimen digitising and data-basing. The electronic age
means that they are far more likely to spend large amounts of
time reacting to identification enquiries (identification is an
important activity, but it does not in itself directly progress
the science of taxonomy). If they are fortunate they may still
be able to contribute to initiatives designed to train taxonomists.
The acquisition and subsequent utilisation of specimens have been
rendered far more bureaucratic by a raft of national and especially
international legislation, diverting yet more time away from hands-on
research. A dedicated researcher is likely to be spending increasing
amounts of time preparing funding proposals, and to be interacting
far more directly and deeply with key user groups. He or she is
also likely to be spending more time writing reports, summaries
and overviews to assist those user groups—an important task,
but yet another diversion of time of the skilled taxonomist away
from conducting primary research. Mirroring a trend common in
modern life, the relationship between manufacturing and retailing
(in this case, of taxonomic information) has become seriously
imbalanced in favour of the latter, which is where the easy profits
(and kudos) presently lie.
18.3. In summary, the Association believes
that the single most informative key measure of taxonomic activity
in the UK should be the cumulative number of person hours spent
directly pursuing taxonomic description and revision. We are confident
that this figure, if correctly assessed, would be shockingly low.
There are two obvious remedial measures to the current situation:
(a) return the remaining taxonomists to full-time research activity
by appointing a new generation of interstitial staff members whose
job is to translate the outputs of the taxonomy for the various
user-groups or (b) to accept that the role of a modern taxonomist
now includes all of these additional "epi-taxonomic"
activities and thus add to the present taxonomic cadre a new generation
of more rounded and integrated taxonomists, specifically directed
to interact with other systematists and with the various user
groups. The Association believes that this second solution would
be more effective, but emphasises that this new generation of
taxonomists must be an additional resource, rather than falling
into the trap of previous remedies by simply reallocating existing
resources to fill perceived short-term needs. It is essential
that any solution should be based on stable, long-term increases
in resources available to systematic biology.
19. Q13. (a) What is the state of
training and education in systematics and taxonomy? (b) Are there
any gaps in capacity? (c) 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?
19.1. Over the past two decades, systematic
biology has almost been eliminated from schools and undergraduate
curricula in the UK (despite a recent marginal increase in the
natural history content of the national curriculum). This has
been part of a broader decline in the educational status of organismal
biology and natural history in general, which has also strongly
negatively affected previously popular topics such as ecology
and evolutionary biology. Broadening consideration even more,
it is also consistent with a move of undergraduates away from
traditional subjects such as biology, zoology, botany, microbiology
and ecology towards "softer" interdisciplinary degrees
such as sports science and food science. Concerns regarding costs
(increasingly passed onto the students rather than borne by the
school) and health and safety constraints, have together greatly
reduced the exposure of both school and undergraduate students
to laboratory based organismal practicals (eg dissection and behavioural
studies) and to excursions for both fieldwork in natural habitats
and visits to natural history collections in museums and botanic
gardens—experiences that began the careers of many of the
present cadre of systematists. Also, in the rare cases where some
systematics is made available at the schools or undergraduate
level, it is likely to be taught by someone with little knowledge
or experience of the discipline. These declines seem bizarre in
the light of the enthusiasm for natural history still clearly
shown by the UK population for natural history, typically inspired
primarily by media figures such as David Attenborough.
19.2. A more positive account can be given
of the availability in the UK of Masters-level training in systematics,
where several well-respected courses are available. However, the
level of research council support for these courses is limited,
and most of these courses currently rely heavily on students who
originate from outside the UK. Also, the paucity of previous exposure
of the students to systematic biology, means that an undesirably
large portion of these typically one-year courses must be spent
teaching basic knowledge that previously the students would already
have possessed. The situation worsens again at the doctoral level,
where positions are uncommon for both stand-alone doctoral grants
and those linked to larger-scale research grants. In particular,
for many years there have been exceptionally few doctoral students
pursuing projects that are primarily taxonomic. This situation
extends to the postdoctoral level, where we suspect that the few
systematics-oriented researchers experience a larger percentage
of researchers either transferring to other research fields or
leaving science altogether than most other research disciplines.
The near-elimination of taxonomy from the university sector means
that it is extremely difficult to find the required university
supervisor for any erstwhile doctoral student. We also suspect
that, for the lucky few who eventually obtain "permanent"
positions, the period between obtaining their doctorate and their
first permanent job is unusually long.
19.3. We also note that other, more "vocational"
routes into a systematics career, passing though a phase of employment
as a technician or curator, have become less effective. This has
occurred partly because there are fewer professional technicians
and curators and partly because employment hierarchies within
organisations have become more rigid, permitting far less fluidity
of movement between these roles and research positions as individuals
gain skills and maturity.
19.4. We are confident that there is already
a profound taxonomic skills deficit in the UK. However, because
of the long periods of time required to generate a skilled systematist
via the "informal apprenticeship" (school for inspiration
> undergraduate for background knowledge > masters for specialist
knowledge > doctorate for research experience), the effects
of the deleterious trends listed above will take a long time to
become fully apparent. However, we also note that any attempts
to remedy the decline will similarly require long periods to take
effect.
19.5. Fortunately, tuition in systematics
in general and taxonomy in particular is much stronger in many
other countries, so that the UK's "gaps in capacity"
can usually be filled, albeit not always satisfactorily. The majority
of postdoctoral and permanent research posts in systematic biology
advertised in the UK are now being filled by applicants who have
been trained abroad (eg North America, Australasia, Scandinavia,
and increasingly eastern Europe). This outcome is not intrinsically
problematic, though some applicants lack the conceptual rigour
desired by many employers (and collaborators), and others are
sufficiently shocked by the disparity between the cost of living
and academic salaries in the UK that they either reject the initial
offer or accept but remain in post for a disappointingly short
period.
19.6. Given the above observations, the
Association believes that it is highly desirable that Britain
generates a stronger pool of systematics researchers, capitalising
on the globally recognised strength of its research universities,
and on the exceptional expertise and collections available in
its major systematics institutes. Specifically, we strongly advocate
rebuilding the UK's "informal apprenticeship" in systematics
and biodiversity, preferably from the bottom up: (a) Organismal
biology and systematics need to be enhanced in secondary schools,
preferably via modifications to the national curriculum; (b) Increased
use of field studies by schools should be strongly encouraged,
deploying not only knowledge-based arguments but also criteria
favoured by the current government, such as remedying social exclusion;
(c) Increased exposure to systematics in schools should lead to
increased demand for specialist undergraduate courses in at least
some higher education institutes (ideally, systematics should
be made a core element of all biological bachelors degrees); (d)
This undergraduate demand would in turn require restoration of
some of the lectureships in systematics that have been lost over
the last two decades—a goal that merits especially high
priority; (e) Government should encourage selected research universities
to specialise in systematics and biodiversity. At least some universities
should operate in partnership with the major research institutes
and/or possess their own actively curated natural history collections;
(f) Organisations such as the Systematics Association and Linnean
Society should work alongside the universities and research institutes
to develop up-to-date teaching materials and to initiate summer
schools and/or workshops for individuals who wish to enhance their
systematics knowledge.
19.7. We suspect that reinvigorating systematics
teaching would have a beneficial effect in related areas currently
under-subscribed by students, such as ecology and evolutionary
biology. This outcome is especially desirable if, as we believe,
significantly increased numbers of skilled researchers are going
to be required to address high-profile, long-term challenges such
as sustainability and climate change.
20. Overarching recommendations
20.1. Recommendation 1: Establish a new
independent body to coordinate UK systematics activities.—Neither
the UK government nor the systematics community has made significant
efforts to respond positively to Recommendation 8—that Defra
should coordinate the establishment of a body to give leadership
to the UK's systematics community, identifying weaknesses and
priorities, and campaigning for increased resourcing. In theory
this remains a highly relevant and desirable recommendation. However,
such a body, named the UK Systematics Forum, existed from
1990 to 1998 (led by a past-President of the Association, Prof.
Stephen Blackmore). The Forum became defunct as a result of a
lack of bipartite support in general and of funds in particular.
Steps would therefore need to be taken to ensure that such a fate
did not befall any future replacement body. This would require
inducements (ideally, both carrots and sticks) to encourage the
major systematics institutes and organisations, and the major
user-groups of systematic information, to take the initiative
seriously by genuinely committing to the goal of developing a
shared strategy. It would be important that this body was seen
to be balanced and objective, which suggests that an informed,
yet neutral, coordinator is required. The Association would be
willing to play that role, provided that (a) adequate, long-term
resources were made available to manage the steering group, and
(b) the steering group had considerable influence over the allocation
of resources, and the establishment of high-level policy, within
the UK systematics community.
20.2. Recommendation 2: Conduct a thorough
and inclusive survey of the current status of the UK systematics
community and the requirements of its user communities.—One
of the first priorities for this new coordinatory body should
be to rapidly, but thoroughly survey the UK systematics base,
so that reviews such as the present HoL inquiry need no longer
rely largely on anecdotal evidence to underpin their deliberations.
An appropriate level of detail would be required, including breakdowns
on time spent by each systematist on different activities and
the resources used in undertaking those activities.
20.3. The systematics community could have
shown more prescience and proactivity in responding to policy-driven
priorities of the UK government. Although we continue to believe
that the UK systematics community should have ultimate control
of its own destiny, it would equally be inappropriate for it to
set its own priorities without consideration of (a) the priorities
of potential sources of substantial funding and (b) the needs
of its many major user groups. Improved dialogues are highly desirable,
as many systematists remain ignorant of the needs of their user
groups, and user groups often fail to understand the constraints
on systematics research, consequently making unreasonable demands
on systematists. In addition, some funding bodies and policy makers
have failed to make the direct connection between systematics
research and environmental monitoring. Until resourcing improves,
there is limited motivation for pursuing recommendations 4-7:
20.4. Recommendation 3: Undertake
a detailed consultation with all current and potential substantial
funders of systematics and biodiversity research.
20.5. Recommendation 4: Agree a prioritised
list of goals for the UK systematics community, and agree the
best methods of achieving those goals.
20.6. Recommendation 5: Recognising
the global success of "Genbank", agree a prioritised
list of databases and a set of inducements to encourage systematists
to routinely deposit other categories of relevant information
in those preferred databases.—The UK should better capitalise
on the lead it has previously shown, in establishing international
agreements for data standards, and for strongly encouraging deposition
of relevant data in a very limited range of internationally accessible
databases, mirroring Genbank. It could also show leadership in
modernising nomenclatural practises and registration, and the
fact that many professional journals are based in the UK could
help to incentivise researchers to populate favoured databases.
However, our global influence in these areas has declined as a
consequence of the apparent unwillingness of UK-based funding
bodies to elevate successful pilot schemes into fully-fledged,
long-term programmes.
20.7. The most obvious funding trend in
the UK in recent years has been to concentrate resources in a
smaller number of larger research grants. Until recently, there
has been no sign that these grants could be awarded for unusually
long periods. It has become abundantly clear to us that systematic
biology needs a mixed economy of funding. The Small and "fairly
small" grants schemes run jointly by the Systematics Association
and the Linnean Society are extraordinarily strongly subscribed
with high-quality proposals. Moreover, 12 years experience of
the Small Grants scheme strongly suggests that it has been cost-effective.
We would therefore like to see funding bodies take such schemes
more seriously. In theory, there is no corresponding problem with
the availability of medium to large-sized grants, since these
have become standard. The problem here for systematists in general,
ands taxonomists in particular, is acquiring such grants. Perhaps
the most important battle-ground is at the most expensive end
of the spectrum. Rather than see large grants awarded to consortia
of many researchers over short periods, we would like to see large
grants awarded to a smaller number of researchers over a longer
time-scale—one more compatible with both taxonomic description
and practical applications such as climate-change monitoring.
20.8 Recognising the ongoing reluctance
of major funding bodies to allocate resources for periods of more
than five years hence, we suggest that the government should encourage
"joined-up funding", where multiple funding bodies each
take partial responsibility for maintaining key long-term research
programmes.
20.9. Recommendation 6: Develop a
mixed economy for funding that spans the full possible range from
small, short-term awards to very large, long-term programmes.
20.10. Recommendation 7: Coordinate
funds from multiple sources in order to guarantee funding for
prioritised long-term research goals over unusually long time-scales.
20.11. The Association supports the consensus
view that, within the UK's systematic biology community, the most
serious damage sustained over the period of the four HoL reviews
has been to taxonomy. This reflects three main causes; (a) The
RAE-mediated near-elimination of taxonomists from the university
sector in the UK, due to low overhead potential and producing
outputs of limited immediate impact; (b) The reduction in other
long-term users of taxonomic data for identification purposes
in the public sector, as a result of over-emphasis in addressing
narrowly focused, tractable questions through short-term funding;
(c) The diversion of time among the few remaining qualified taxonomists
away from descriptive taxonomy towards a rapidly expanding range
of other responsibilities (eg identification and education/PUS,
together with increased bureaucratic burdens imposed by international
agreements such as CBD/CITES and the Freedom of Information Act)
or the movement of taxonomists wholly into other, more lucrative
research fields. The pyramid of activity appears to have become
inverted, with fewer researchers generating novel data than recycling
existing data. These observations lead to a further series of
recommendations (8-10), which are a logical sequence that collectively
is designed to redress all three of these negative effects on
taxonomy.
20.12. Recommendation 8: Establish
a new national Institute of Biodiversity Research, requiring a
substantial number of permanent salaried taxonomic positions to
be inaugurated within several pre-existing systematics institutes,
biodiversity monitoring institutes and research universities.—Appointees
would pursue previously prioritised, and interrelated, research
programmes, some providing the descriptive taxonomy "pull"
and others the applied taxonomy "pull", and with input
from collaborators in other disciplines through the establishment
of "taxonomic colleges". Ideally, this scheme would
be funded by the Department of Universities, Innovation and Skills
(DUIS) and administered by joint research councils (NERC, BBSRC
and perhaps EPSRC). Much of the initial focus would most likely
be long-term monitoring, particularly of climate change. It would
require careful prioritisation of appropriate habitats and taxonomic
groups. We note that experience suggests that this scheme would
not be cost-effective, if only short-term or medium-term funding
was provided.
20.13. Recommendation 9: Assign the
majority of these new taxonomic posts to the university sector.—Admittedly,
this guideline is hardly a unanimous view of the Association's
council. However, university positions should have maximum positive
effect because they will reinvigorate university undergraduate
teaching in systematics, and will provide; essential university-based
supervisors for postgraduates studying taxonomy (thus revitalising
the "informal apprenticeship" in taxonomy); university-based
co-applicants for inter-institutional funding proposals in systematics;
foci for local/regional natural history societies and, where still
in existence, for natural history collections.
20.14. Recommendation 10: Apply to
these new university appointees a set of RAE-style assessment
criteria specifically optimised for performance in the taxonomic
field.—Protect these taxonomic researchers from the
profoundly negative effect of the RAE (or, more accurately, its
successor, the REF) by either (a) placing the relevant academics
wholly outside the auspices of the REF or (b) greatly diversifying
the criteria required by the REF, such that the standard outputs
of a descriptive taxonomist (long-lived and most likely increasingly
electronic) would allow systematists to be put forward for the
REF while benefiting, rather than prejudicing the well-being of,
their host department. In other words, the REF need to be revised
to be more flexible, and in particular to better fit the needs
of long-term research.
20.13. Lastly, we offer two recommendations
(11, 12) designed to better channel the ongoing enthusiasm shown
for organismal biology by schoolchildren, retired and other "amateur"
natural historians:
20.14. Recommendation 11. Introduce
more organismal biology into the national curriculum, and restore
previous levels of laboratory experimentation and field excursions
in schools and universities.—The interests of both the
country and its citizens will be best served by relieving some
of the fiscal and bureaucratic pressures that have, in practice
by stealth, systematically suppressed the innate love of Britons
for the study of their natural history. This will in turn revitalise
the flow of natural historians through the UK's educational infrastructure,
eventually (after a considerable lag period) restoring the "informal
apprenticeship" that once generated the world's best taxonomists.
Achieving this goal would require only modest increases in funding
for school-based science and a pragmatic reappraisal of the relevant
Health and Safety regulations.
20.15. Recommendation 12. Provide
increased resources and improved coordination for organisations
that encourage the acquisition and constructive use of taxonomic
skills by amateur natural historians.—Although organisations
dominated by amateur natural historians are now responsible for
the bulk of biodiversity recording conducted in the British Isles,
professionals play key roles in providing training (eg through
specialist workshops) and, on occasion, leadership. However, the
combination of increased workloads and decreased credit for such
work from most employers means that it is becoming increasingly
difficult for employed researchers to fill these key roles; clearer
recognition is badly needed. Nationwide recording and data-dissemination
schemes, notably the National Biodiversity Network (NBN), have
long been chronically under-funded, as have most of the specialist
societies that generously supply NBN with original data. Papers
and articles generated by amateurs (and by poorly funded professionals)
require subsidies against, or preferably absolution from, the
substantial costs of the rapidly expanding "author-pays"
open-access concept of publishing. An even greater contribution
from government would be to properly acknowledge the major contributions
made by amateurs to biodiversity assessment, by (a) formally recognising
those who have acquired appropriate vocational qualifications
as para-taxonomists and (b) providing a central fund to cover
their travel and subsistence.
20.16. Most importantly, none of the above
recommendations should be implemented by reallocating the meagre
resources already vouchsafed to the systematics community.
21. SELECTED
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anonymous. (1997). Survey of user needs for
[UK] systematic biology research. UK Systematics Forum/Creative
Research. 65 pp.
Anonymous. (2002). House of Lords debate on
sustainable development (What on Earth). Hansard, July
12th. 30 pp.
Anonymous. (2004). Plant diversity challenge:
The UK's response to the Global Strategy for Plant Conservation.
JNCC/Plantlife/RBG Kew. 53 pp.
Bateman, R. M. (ed.) (2002). Proposals of
the Linnean Society of London to further develop and implement
the report by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and
Technology entitled "What on Earth". Unpublished
document. 21 pp.
Bateman, R. M. (2007). Current status and objectives
of the Systematics Association. Systematics Newsletter
28: 10-13.
Bateman, R. M. (2008). Publish in the wrong
place, and be damned. Research Fortnight (23rd January):
18-19.
Bateman, R. M., Allcock, L., Farjon, A. (with
Leadbeater, B., Littlewood, T., Reid, G., Wheeler, Q. & Savolainen,
V.) (2005). Report of the joint Systematics Association-Linnean
Society working group toward a systematics and biodiversity strategy.
12 pp.
Bateman, R. M. & Hill, D. L. (2007). Making
the biological case for joined-up thinking in government. Research
Fortnight (7th March): 16 + 18.
Battarbee, R. (2005). A review of freshwater
ecology in the UK. Freshwater Biological Association. 24 pp.
Bisby, F. & Smith, P. (eds) (1996). Species
2000 v3.2. Southampton University. 44 pp.
Blackmore, S. & Cutler, D. (eds) (1996).
Systematics Agenda 2000: the challenge for Europe. Linnean
Society Occasional Publication 1. 105 pp.
Blackmore, S. et al. (1998). The Web
of Life: A strategy for systematic biology in the United Kingdom.
UK Systematics Forum/Office of Science and Technology, London.
28 pp.
Claridge, M. F. (ed.) (1992). Taxonomy in
the 1990s (Taxonomic research and its applications: problems and
priorities). Linnean Society/Systematics Association. 49 pp.
Cracraft, J. et al. (eds) (1994). Systematics
agenda 2000; charting the biosphere. ASPT/SSB/Hennig Society.
20 pp.
Cracraft, J. et al. (eds) (2002). Assembling
the Tree of Life. National Science Foundation. 8 pp.
Crane, P. R. (ed.) (2003). Measuring biodiversity
for conservation. Royal Society. 56 pp.
Dainton, Lord (chair) (1991). Systematic
biology research. House of Lords Select Committee on Science
and Technology Papers 41 + 22. 202 + 319 pp.
Duraiappah, A. K. & Naeem, S. (eds) (2005).
Ecosystems and human well-being: biodiversity synthesis.
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 53+ pp.
Futuyma, D. J. et al. (eds) (1997). Evolution,
science, and society: evolutionary biology and the [US] national
research agenda. ASN/ABS/ ESA/GSA/Pal Soc/SMBE/SSE/SSB. 46
pp.
Godfray, C. (2002). Challenges for taxonomy.
Nature 417: 17-19.
Godfray, H. C. J. & Knapp, S. (eds) (2004).
Taxonomy for the twenty-first century. Royal Society.
Krebs, J. (chair) (1992). Evolution and biodiversity:
the new taxonomy. NERC. 44 pp.
Mallet, J. (2002). How the Lord's first call
to save taxonomy was ignored. Research Fortnight, 24th
July: 17.
Page, L. M. et al. (2005). LINNE:
Legacy infrastructure network for natural environments. Illinois
Natural History Survey, Champaign, IL. 16 pp.
Tautz, D. et al. (2002). DNA points the
way ahead in taxonomy. Nature 418: 479.
Taylor, A. (2006). United Kingdom Taxonomic
needs assessment. Natural History Museum (on behalf of the
Global Taxonomy Initiative). 35 pp.
Walmsley, J. (chair) (2002). What on Earth?
The threat to the science underpinning conservation. House
of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology Paper 118.
48 + 170 pp.
Walmsley, J. (2002). What on Earth? Science
and Public Affairs (June 2002), 20-21.
Watson, E. (ed.) (1996). A summary of UK-based
expertise in systematic biology. UK Systematics Forum. 47 pp.
3 February 2008
|
