a Grand Scheme for systematics? (was Re: Electronic publishing (fwd))

[Jerry Bricker]

> All right then - to combine this with a thread that's been going on over on
> Entomo-l for some time - we face one rather serious dilemma; a dwindling
> ability to pass on information. In the present thread, this relates to our
> ability to convert older media to increase their accessibility. In the
> entomo-l thread, the issue focused on the rapidly-shrinking *personnel*
> capable of identifying and naming organisms. Both represent potential
> losses of knowledge and as such are anathema to folks such as ourselves.
> The two are clearly linked in that one process creates new info, the other
> passes it on (and if there are fewer and fewer systematists, who will
> update the archives?).

O.K., I've seen this mentioned several times in the last year and I have
yet to believe it.  Just what data is there to suggest that the number of
systematists is shrinking?   Any systematics related position in botany
will garner at least 100 applicants.  Can anyone really think that such a
cut-throat job market is reflective of a declining base of qualified
applicants?  From the time I first expressed interest in systematics I
was told that finding a job in the field would be a miracle.  The critics
were right.

A recent report (ca. 1992) that I cannot find right now (a typical
information retrievall problem) indicated that there has been a surge in
the number of graduate students training in
systematics.  This trend was attributed to a general lack of comfort with
chemistry and math felt by American students.  Recent advancements
in molecular genetics require strengths in chemistry and math.  It is
thought that students see systematics as a user friendly alternative.

I would suggest that we have more than enough systematists to go around.
The major problem is that the number of funded positions is declining.
Changes in the field of biology have been as much political as they have
been technological.  The challenge is to reverse the attitude that
systematics is a dead field and to begin opening up career opportunities
for young scientists.  Whether that will happen or not has yet to be seen.

I will not be convinced of declining numbers of persons claiming to be
systematists until the job market changes.  The true measure will come
when I
apply for a position knowing that I'm one of 10-20 applicants for that
position.  Wouldn't it be nice to be as in demand as a chemical engineer
or a computer programmer?  For some reason, people in this field feel
that if you only have to do 2 post-docs to get a permenant position there's
a shortage of talent.  I always thought there was something wrong with a
system that requires a doctorate to work for half a decade or more for
salaries that often are below $20,000 per year.

Am I missing something here?  I will gladly change my mind if someone can
show me hard proof that there is indeed a shortage of taxonomists and
systematists.  Until then, I will continue to keep my full-time,
permenant position, teach undergraduates, do a little systematics on the
side, and be one of the 100+ hopefuls applying for each of the few
systematics positions that open up each year.

Jerald S. Bricker
Laramie County Community College
1400 E. College Drive
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82007-3299
(307) 778-1139
Fax: (307) 778-1399
lcjbrick at antelope.wcc.edu