Systematics and Taxonomy are NOT cheap science.

[Martin Dubé]

Stuart Poss wrote on Tue, 5 Oct 1999 10:31:42 -0500

> While I would agree with much of what Robin has said [see below] has
> been true in the
> past, this need not be the case if systematists and taxonomists make a
> greater effort to transform their profession to take greater advantage of
> information technologies.

Greater you said ?

> It is often said that we live in an information
> age and the economies of the future will be built on gathering,
> processing, and making use of information.  Given the nature of our
> discipline, there is no other in biology that is more focused on
> synthesizing information about organisms. Clearly, it all starts with an
> acccurate identification.

This is a myth (however, I would had agreed not a so long time ago).  I
even suspect that other biologists are often irritated by such assertion.
The guy who put a number on my office door did a useful job but I would
be opposed to give him a golden medal for that (especially when he
changed his mind three times in the last year !).  Sound taxonomy is
based on all useful evidences but, in practice, there are often factors that
play into the selection of evidences (i.e., what means 'useful' ?).

> Certainly, we can continue to feel relatively marginalized with respect to
> many important environmental issues of our day and act accordingly, or we
> can seek to develop new and better integrated ways to build taxonomy and
> systematics into "BIG SCIENCE", which in fact it is.  Its just we still
> organize our efforts and communicate with one another using a largely
> outdated paradigm that perceives these disciples as organized around
> individual investigators or individual insitutions.  We need to act in
> more coordinated fashion, if the larger public is to recognize and
> appreicate our collective contributions.

It is wishful thinking, isn't it ?  The only living thread that connects me to
the world of taxonomy is Taxacom (I am not going to drop it !  Sorry.).
That is fine but not enough.

> I would argue that state of the
> art sciences of taxonomy and systematics can not be done in a vacuum.
> Although there will be always be substantial and exemplary individual
> contributions, ours is a collective enterprise.  Taxonomy and systematics
> are now, and probably always have been, much too big of an endeavor to be
> practiced by individuals or institutions working alone.
>
> Will there be more taxonomists than lawyers or will they be better paid
> than plumbers?  Perhaps not, but this doesn't preclude us from getting
> involved in redefining our discipline to our own advantage, as opposed to
> singing the taxonomist's lament.  If speculators can make billions on the
> allure and use of these new technologies, why can't taxonomists and
> systematists also use them improve their lot and those who are urgently
> needed to follow in their footsteps?  I believe it starts with one's
> perception of how to interact with your colleagues and in redefining how
> systematic and taxonomic information is generated, used, and made
> available.
>
> We have to ask ourselves constantly how can we organize this kind of
> information so it is more valuable to ourselves and to society.  I would
> argue that there are a great many new ways that did not exist just a few
> years ago. Further, we had better start using them, if there is to be much
> of a biota left to study.  This in an of itself makes our profession
> extraordinarily valuable, since one could hardly contemplate managing or
> preserving what left of the natural world without state of the art
> taxonomy and systematics.  Yes, it may be a long time before the average
> guy on the street or in the legislature recognizes this, but lets face it,
> if we wait for them, much of the natural world is doomed.  Taxonomists and
> systematists make the world safer for grandchildren.  That is both
> important and valuable.  If people pay riduculous prices for an incredible
> array of unneeded junk that usually gets thrown out without much use or
> for services that do little more than appeal to their vanity, then they
> will also be willing to pay for our essential services as well.

Hum, an interesting subject : the place of vanity in science.

> If I do reject what Robin has just said, it is the notion that systematics
> and taxonomy are cheap sciences and that all we need is a microscope and
> some specimens.  Yes, one can do good quality work with these tools and
> many have proved this in the past.  However, times have changed and there
> are a great many other tools that we should also be using, including
> molecular techniques, electron and confocal microscopy, GIS, laser
> imaging, computational and networking technologies, etc. that must also be
> used to move the integration of systematic and taxonomic information
> forward.

I strongly doubt that taxonomists not presently using these big tools are
doing it by choice.  Such resources are not widely available, no need to go
in the so-called third world. It is too easy to argue that if you can't get
them, it is because you do not deserve it.  Such statement looks for me
as a death sentence (even if it was not your intention).

> This is critical, if we are to alter perceptions of our
> discipline by those in other scientific and professional disciplines that
> are also not standing still.  Lets dispel the notion that taxonomists are
> largely a "bunch of old foks cloistered in ivory towers with dusty books
> and fading specimens".  Its never really been true anyway.  There's a lot
> more life and imagination in some of these old geezers than you think!
>
> When non-systematists make disparaging remarks about our profession, I
> like to take time to point out their ignorance of progress in our
> profession and the vital role archive collections play in understanding
> the natural world.

Sorry, I am not a preacher.  And what do you say when such remarks
come from taxonomists (who do not consider as valuable all the aspects
of their science) ?

> There is a lot of ignorance regarding taxonomy and
> systematics and a lot of sterotyping, based mostly on outdated ideas,
> somehow learned in high school or undergraduate biology.  However, one
> need not play into these or perpetuate them.  Remember, our business is
> not rocket science.  Its a lot more sophisticated and complex than rocket
> science.  Indeed, for some classes of problems we need rocket science as
> yet another tool of our profession.
>
> Where do you begin?  Start local and focused on the valuable and important
> aspects of the biology of the organisms you study.  Then link these in
> innovative more efficient and accessible ways to the efforts of other like
> minded scientists.   Be willing and eager to learn new techniques.
> Especially, work to improve the value and visibility of your collections.

Clearly, you have more than the minimum required.

> Remember your collection is really only part of one large single
> collection that documents what we know about the earth's biota.
> Collections are truely the crown jewels of our profession.  Treat them as
> such and never let anyone else, especially students, ignore their
> importance for us all, taxonomists and non-taxonomists alike.
>
> Robin Leech wrote:
>
> > My science is called cheap science.  Essentially all I need are
> > microscopes, spiders, a reasonable library, e-mail (yup, the scopes,
>> the
> > library, and e-mail all from my own pockets), and I am away.  I can
> > either do my own collecting on my own time (as I have been doing for
> > over 30 years), or I can work on stuff that others have collected (which
> > I also do).
> >
> > Departments want showy science, and they want scientists who can bring
> > in big money.
> _____________________________________________________________________
> Stuart G. Poss                       E-mail: Stuart.Poss at 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

I beg your pardon, Stuart, if my message is not as developed as yours.
You have raised many points of interests.  I only hope that I will be
followed by others.

Martin


******************
Martin Dube, Ph.D., associate professor
Edmundston Campus, University of Moncton
Edmundston, NB, CANADA  E3V 2S8
Tel.: 506-737-5154   Fax : 506-737-5373  ICQ # 37925656
http://www.profs.cuslm.ca/martin/botanique.htm
http://www.profs.cuslm.ca/martin/invertebres.htm