Examination of Witnesses (Questions 220-223)
Sir Neil Chalmers, Dr Jim Munford, Dr Mark Hill and
Dr Ian McLean
29 APRIL 2008
Q220 Lord Krebs: My Lord Chairman,
if I could just follow up by asking about the continuing collection
of long-term data sets, whether at Monks Wood itself or in universities.
From your perspective, are arrangements in place to ensure that
long-term records that have huge value, particularly in light
of understanding the impacts of climate change, are being stewarded
and collected and archived properly?
Dr Munford: I think we have made the point clearly
that most biological recording in the UK is run by volunteers.
A report produced in 1995 by the Co-ordinating Commission of Biological
Recording, which was chaired by Sir John Burnett, reported that
at least 70% of recording activity is by volunteers, and they
are volunteers who do it for their own reasons; so in terms of
long-term data sets there will always be an army of recorders
interested in vascular plants or birds for example. If you were
to look at the British flea recording scheme, that is one man
who is in his 80s, so if there is an importance associated with
long-term records—
Q221 Chairman: There was a well-known
lady, was there not!
Dr Munford: The point I am trying to make is
there is a huge variety. There are some taxa which are fairly
well safeguarded in terms of long-term continuity in the data
sets; there are other taxa with fewer participants in the recording
activity which I would have to say would be subject to death or
other variation which is really beyond our control because it
is a volunteer community.
Dr Hill: Can I say that I think this is where
the Biological Records Centre has a very definite function. We
have actually received flea data from this octogenarian and we
are about to publish a volume showing where the things are and
these data will then be maintained on a NERC server at Wallingford,
I hope indefinitely, and I would have said that the aim is that
this will be seen by NERC as what they call a national capability
element which they will just maintain on a long-term basis, and
there is no evidence that I can see that that is not an absolutely
firm plan.
Q222 Chairman: At an earlier point
in this meeting, Baroness Walmsley reminded us that the House
of Lords Select Committee had visited this area before, twice
in fact and I have been on both those previous committees, and
on every occasion we have heard from the taxonomic community itself
that they do not feel they have been successful in communicating
the value of its work to the non-taxonomic community, and this
is a point that the JNCC in its written evidence makes. Is that
still true and, if so, is this not an odd contradiction when you
think that we have heard there are so many volunteers or amateurs
who are contributing to this data collection and yet the value
does not seem to be understood by the wider scientific and non-scientific
community?
Dr McLean: Yes, it seems to me that the gap
is relatively small but it is nevertheless a gap. I think we are
all aware of the huge contribution that David Attenborough has
made to the wider understanding of the variety of life on Earth,
and that has been an immense achievement. An awful lot of the
world's biodiversity has now been seen by people which would not
have been seen without that person's huge single-handed effort.
What people probably do not grasp, though, is all the work that
is necessary to understand, classify and work with it, and it
is a relatively small gap but we do not yet have an Attenborough
advocate who has spelt out the message to people that this is
what we need, and until it actually is done at that sort of level
and engaging with that breadth of the population, we are still
going to have the shortfall.
Q223 Chairman: So you have identified
leadership which is needed within government. Is leadership needed
within the taxonomic community as well?
Dr McLean: Yes I believe that it is. Possibly
part of the issue is that it takes a long time to become familiar
with a group of organisms and when you have invested that effort
you want to recoup it and bring it back by publishing on it and
by selling your expertise that way. It can be a distraction to
spend the time trying to publicise the broader requirements of
taxonomy. There are some very good taxonomists who do it though
within their own areas, but I think it is only a minority of the
community that actually has the capacity to do it.
Sir Neil Chalmers: I believe there is a need
for strong leadership and powerful messages to go out in Britain
about systematics and its value. I think at the moment too many
of us think about systematics and about wildlife, if you like,
in the UK, as something that is nice to have but not absolutely
vital to the country, and therefore people who study butterflies
or flowers are doing interesting things and having a nice time
but it is not really of fundamental importance to the future economy
of the country. Somehow one has got to change that perception,
and I think that the systematic community, certainly during the
time that I have been associated with it, has made from time to
time some quite serious attempts to promote the value of systematics,
but I do not think it has done it, looking back, with a consistency
and political drive that is really necessary to move the systematics
issue up the agenda, if you like. I think this is perhaps one
of the most frustrating things of working in the field of systematics
and one of the areas which I would hope one could work on in the
years to come to make sure that this difficulty is overcome.
Chairman: Thank you very much. I think that
exhausts the questions that the members of the Committee wanted
to ask. Thank you to all our four expert witnesses for a very
interesting session. It has been most helpful to us, thank you.
| 
