|
Taxonomists and Users: two species that rarely meet
by Fabian Haas, SMNS
|
| Click here to read the discussion page ... |
| The taxonomic impediment, the lack of sufficient taxonomic skills, information and capacity to fulfill the CBD objectives and obligations, is well known and has been well lamented over the past years. Unfortunately, the situation for taxonomists seemingly has not improved.
In the following, I would like to share some thoughts about this problem, which I gathered during COP8 in Curitiba, Brazil, based on the presentations by and discussions with colleagues.
I would like to present these ideas both from the taxonomist and the user perspective. None of those might reflect the complexity of the real situation, however, a somewhat simplified description might be useful to start a discussion and for a refinement of the positions.
|
Taxonomists believe in the intrinsic value of their basic research in Earth's biodiversity. Taxonomy is a science in its own right and not to be measured against the political and economic usefulness that it might have.
Being a science in itself, there is no need for the taxonomist to concern themselves primarily with the applicability of the research findings. This is the case in many other sciences: what is the practical use of, for example, astronomy? |
| Users want quick and simple answers to their specific needs, sometimes with considerable detail, but often data with definite scientific proof are not really necessary. As their needs are changing, often with considerable speed, the answers they need for making the decisions (establishing protected areas, CITES lists, city planning, GMO crop test) change, too. They are not really interested in the intricate details of science. |
| Taxonomists are very exact, thus often painstaking and reluctant to make short and clear statements about biodiversity. 'More research is needed' is an often heard sentence, which is true, but not helpful for making decisions. |
| Users believe that taxonomy is a public good and so rather wait than commission taxonomic research and taxonomic products, such as identification keys for certain groups of organisms. Assuming taxonomy to be a public good, users are often surprised to hear that they should pay for taxonomic information. Often, users don't have the information about who is to address to solve this or that specific problem. |
| Taxonomist often enjoy their privacy, keeping their skills almost as a secret. |
| The user needs are rather limited with regards to the spectrum of species they are interested in. There are some 'flagship' species e.g. Gorillas, dolphins and other whales, everything with fur and feathers is good (cf. the many 'birding' people). Less interesting are those species with less appeal, such as the great variety of worms, flies and earwigs. Consequently, nature conservation mainly focused on the vertebrates, and so do their needs. Users have a high and constant need of information for a limited number of taxa, occasional needs for some species, and no need for the vast majority of species. |
| Taxonomists choose their favourite group of organisms based on subjective, often unconscious decisions and don't care about user need or status as 'flagship' species. Rather, they will choose a taxon which is little known, and thus scientifically interesting. |
| There is an increasing requirement (or desire) of users and funding bodies to get some return for their money: "Why should I continue funding taxonomy and data capture if I cannot easily use the results?" Users select 'priority groups/taxa' according to their needs. |
| This pressure contradicts the personal way many taxonomists choose their taxon and may result in shifting of priorities into the direction of (sometimes easy but scientifically less interesting) priority groups or 'flagship' species. |
| Users don't ask or demand taxonomists for 'purpose-build' products: e.g. identification keys for very special group of organisms using an 'easy' set of characters which might enable users to discriminate the species they are interested in, but not all species in the region. This, however, might maximize ease of use and also the speed of production of these products. |
|
Taxonomists want to produce definite and all comprising keys and identification material which should last another 20-50 years. The compilation of data at this quality does take considerable time. Many areas of the world are not regularly visited and inventoried, and so the data sets for distribution of species are rather limited.
In a survey on Eastern African Dermaptera, I found that there are less than 10 specimens from the region for many species. Almost each new collecting trip yielded new species, at least for a region, if not to science. |
| Users of taxonomic information have all kinds of educational background: many of them have degrees in sciences other than biology or no academic degree at all, such as custom officers. Others are interested laymen and naturalists. |
|
In contrast to many other fields of science, taxonomy is rather slow to learn. Many reasons for this slowness are closely related with the over 250 years history of taxonomy. The sometimes old original descriptions, often in rare and inaccessible books, have to be consulted and ancient geographic names have to be traced (such as "T.B.F", if it is a geographic name at all).
Furthermore, for a detailed comparison the original, the so-called 'type' specimens, need to be consulted, and so the museum in which these types are stored needs to be traced and send by post to the examiner.
Many of these problems are reduced by the Internet initiatives, such as GBIF, as well as by many private enthusiasts, who designed websites for their favourite taxa. Today, but not a mere 10 years ago, you can read literature and examine type material (rather the images) at any time and from anywhere in the world through your standard web browser. In very many cases, this will suffice to check a characteristic, or if a geographic information on the label is correct. |
|
| This opens up many new options such as taking printouts of the original descriptions right to the field and comparing plants you find directly with the original descriptions. How many of us have their own electronic library (text and image) on their laptops? Quite many, I reckon. |
|
The essential problem which still slows learning of taxonomy is that it involves learning of shapes and colours, which cannot be done directly from the literature alone. It requires comparing specimens and remembering the characters. Details often matter only after comparison, so you need to re-examine specimens again. Details may vary, so you need to see lots of material to remember and distil the essentials of a shape or colour.
I like to compare that with the development of an own style in arts (NOT saying that taxonomy is an art!). You can learn everything about colours, exposure, light, focal lengths and composition, but it will take considerable time to develop your own photographic or painting style. And being an excellent photographer does not make you an excellent painter (and vice versa). |
|
What are the consequences of all this?
|
| 1) The comparatively long education time for taxonomists definitely requires a long term perspective for a young scientist who likes to work in taxonomy. In more than one case, colleagues failed to get a job in taxonomy just when they were best. With this unpredictable perspective in mind, youngsters will turn to other fields of science and pursue taxonomy as a hobby, at best. On the other hand, a clear and reasonable career perspective will attract sufficient numbers of students.
This has been realized by Brazil which clearly states in her national taxonomic strategy that a 'curator' career has to be created to give that perspective.
|
| 2) Project work, i.e. with time-limited contract and no long term perspective in the background, is less suitable for taxonomy because of a considerable learning time. |
| 3) It is difficult to move a taxonomist from one taxon to another, but it is easier to change the bioregion. |
| 4) In order to deal with surprisingly arising needs, we still remember SARS with the sudden need for information about this special animal ("civet cat" or "Larvenroller", Mammalia: Viverridae: Paradoxurinae: Paguma larvata), there has to be a backbone or permanent infrastructure dealing with taxonomy of as many as possible taxa. You never know when you might need the information and collections! |
| 5) For many taxa, very few specialists world wide will suffice to cover most, possibly arising, needs. So regions, such as the EU, and countries should coordinate when vacancies are filled or new jobs created in taxonomy. In total, we are talking about 4.000 to 6.000 professional taxonomists world wide, which is very little personel.
The same applies to the design and assembling of collections.
|
| 6) There is a big market for few 'flagship' species and the taxonomists concerned with these organisms. |
| 7) Make use of the financial potential these 'flagship' species have and sell your taxonomic expertise to the user and by this way bring in additional money to taxonomy. |
| 8) Approach possible users and make them aware that they have taxonomic needs and should pay for products they need. |
| 9) User needs tend to out-pace taxonomic research. |
| 10) As shown in other areas of endeavour, the more useable the information produced, the more demand for the information is generated and hence the increase in support for the science. Taxonomy is any less relevant in this area. By making our information more useable, the greater the likelihood that new funding sources will become available and thus not only make new positions available for applied taxonomists (i.e. those working on data of immediate use to users), but also to taxonomists wanting to work on taxa of less immediate demand by users. (by Arthur D. Chapman, Toowoomba) |
|
Did CBD and GTI help to reduce the taxonomic impediment?
|
In my view, the CBD helped in many ways, especially to make governments aware of the precarious situation of taxonomy. It helped keeping this word alive and made it even more widely known.
Developing countries are always strong in demanding more support for their taxonomic work, in order to reach the objectives of the CBD. GTI also helped to bring in additional money into taxonomy by lobbying at national ministries and the EU, for example. |
| However, in this context, the CBD has a flaw. |
The CBD is country driven, i.e. the sovereign states meet, discuss and pass decisions. However, the great majority of taxonomists are not employed in state organisations. They work sometime in a national museum, more often in state/province/kanton/land or city and county institutions.
The pressure on these institutions from the CBD is low but that coming from the local budgets is high. So, all too often, the owner of the institution needs to make budget cuts where ever they are not legally bound. That is e.g. in arts, sciences and museums.
At universities, these cuts are most severe at institutions which cannot reach significant funding through soft money. Soft money is the money a possible user spends to fulfill some need (and now see above). Each of the funding agencies will ask why exactly they should pay for long term perspectives (collections and people) in taxonomy, when the return is prestige at best. |
Further Information
|
| Click here for a BioNET-INTERNATIONAL presentation on a related topic given by Richard Smith on COP8 |
| Chapman, A.D. (2005). Uses of Primary Species-Occurrence Data. Report for the Global Biodiversity Information Facility 2005. 111pp. Copenhagen: GBIF. |
| See also my 'Essential Reading page' on the taxonomist numbers and the 'Database on Biodiversity Literature' of our Focal Point. |
| Click here to read the discussion page ... |
|
Acknowledgements
|
| I would like to thank all the colleagues discussing these questions with me on COP8 and other occassions especially Ryan Hill, the Programme Officers for the GTI in the CBD Secretariat for important comments on the text. As you will see on the discussion page, very valid contribution and helpful comments came from members of the TAXACOM list. Thanks to all of them |
| CBD-CHM | Tagungen | Case Studies | Taxonomie & Taxonomen | Archiv | Links | Glossar/Akronyme | Kontakt/über uns