data sharing/security

[Stuart G. Poss]

Michael wrote:
>
> At 10:55 AM 12/9/98 -0600, Stuart G. Poss wrote:
> >
> >> The unfortunate situation for many rare plant species is that their
> >> protection lies only in their obscurity and remoteness from public
> >> attention.
> >>
> >Given increasing human population and economic pressures, we can't
> >expect obscurity and remoteness to be properties that will characterize
> >most species in the future.
>
> The remoteness and obscurity I refer to are physical.
> >We must be careful that the system we do develop does
> >not restrict access to data where there is no compelling need.
>
I understood and too share your meaning, my point being only that there
are fewer and fewer places on earth where people aren't putting their
feet.  Hence, there is a larger dimension to the problem that securing
data won't solve.  At some point, we need to train people where not to
put their feet.  We must recognize that as well, as we attempt to
establish how much of the locality record we can reasonably permit to be
freely available.

My argument is that in many instances where there are greater threats
than  inappropriate use gleaned from the web.  These threats are larger
than those that would accrue if someone were to observe a locality
record of say a rare orchid and then immediately launch a collecting
expedition, perhaps to the hinterlands of Wisconsin or South America to
pull it out of the ground and take it home.  Some kinds of threats are
not easily identified yet have profound effects on rare or at risk
species.  However, in order to assess them, scientists need ready access
to precise locality information.  One can not study potential ecological
interactions in a historical context among species with county level
data, or at least not and expect anything but the crudest of patterns to
emerge.

> Do you accept that some needs may indeed be compelling enough?  The matter
> at hand is balancing degree of security against level of restriction.

Yes, I thought I had made this clear.  As you point out, its a balancing
act.
I think we need to establish criteria to decide rather than do it on an
ad hoc, species by species basis and having decided, develop hopefully
universal approaches to authentication so that those who need access to
these kinds of data for legitimate purposes will not be impeeded in
procurring it.

Where a threat resulting from inappropriate use of data the approach you
advocate is both defensible and perhaps unavoidable.  In general,
however, I think we should strive for as much openness so that 1) we can
improve on the accuracy and precision of our data and 2) perhaps by
sharing the information more robust conservation, research, and
educational strategies can be devised.  In my opinion securing the data
from inappropriate use, while perhaps unavoidable, is a strategy of last
resort.  Where we can, I think we need to be proactive and be seen as
proactive.  While some might argue that this means going boldly go where
no taxonomist has gone before and developing a new marcoeconomics for
taxonomy and systematics, I think we are better off trying to perfect
the system we have inherited through time.  The current model largely
stems from convincing the public at large and scientists in other
disciplines that what taxonomists and systematists do is important and
worth funding.

> John Shuey has posted to Taxacom an excellent description of the Biological
> Conservation Database (BCD) used by The Nature Conservancy (Re: data
> sharing - an unauthorized TNC response).  For taxa of conservation concern,
> this comprehensive database system already exists (for a certain geographic
> area).  It contains an exhaustive survey of collections data.  John
> explains that the BCD data is shared, but with caution.  He also mentions
> that some of this data may in the future be made available over the
> internet, with some location information "fuzzed".  I agree with this
> approach.

I saw the post and am pleased that they are doing useful things with my
contributions.  However, in many cases these data are often the same
records gleaned from biolgical collections so we are in many respect
back to the same issues.  It is also important to note that these
organizations are private entities are in a more legally defensable
position to restrict access to their data and many of us at state
supported institutions.
>
> Michael Chamberland

--
_____________________________________________________________________
Stuart G. Poss                       E-mail: sgposs at seahorse.ims.usm.edu
Senior Research Scientist & Curator  Tel: (228)872-4238
Gulf Coast Research Laboratory       FAX: (228)872-4204
P.O. Box 7000
Ocean Springs, MS  39566-7000