Fwd: Re: New Insect Systematics Position

[John Pinto]

The original announcement for this position was from John Heraty (I simply
posted it on TAXACOM).  Below is John's response to Wills Flowers earlier
comment questioning the significance of NSF programs in helping promote
such positions .  .......................... JP


On 11/23/05 12:38 PM, "John Pinto" <jpinto at UCR.EDU> wrote:

 >> At long last... a new position in insect systematics (thanks due in
 >> large part from the NSF funding initiatives through PEET and TOL).
 >> For a copy of the job announcment (at U.C. Riverside)

 >While it's good to see any taxonomic position opening, and I wish Dr. Pinto
 >and the candidate every success, I don't see that this is a very impressive
 >advertisement for PEET or TOL.  This is an example of the rather generic
 >"taxonomy + whatever" position that has been available in small numbers all
 >along.
 >NSF programs like PEET, TOL, and BS&I have been heavily promoted as the
 >solution to the taxonomic impediment.  However, after almost 10 years there
 >is little evidence that they have made a significant difference either in
 >the production of taxonomic products or in improving the employment outlook
 >for taxonomists.

 >Wills Flowers
 >Center for Biological Control
 >Florida A&M Univ.

To: John Pinto <jpinto at ucr.edu>
From: John Heraty <john.heraty at ucr.edu>
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: New Insect Systematics Position

No, I don't think his point is entirely valid. These NSF programs have had
a big impact at all leevels. We actually have a fairly impressive list of
taxonomic publications resulting from our PEET. Perhaps there could be more
but you can't always do everything. We also trained a good lot of students
of which two now have positions, two are in postdoctoral positions, and two
more entered a doctoral program in systematics. I also like to think that
our TOL grants will have an impact on sorting out the classification
(especially for chalcidoidea). I really believe that it was the high levels
of funding from the PEET, TOL and USDA programs that 'guaranteed' the
position replacement for us in the eyes of the administration (which once
said that they would only be interested in big money positions) and it
almost got us a third position before the California budget crisis.

It is sad to think that these decisions are not always made on the need for
a science, but money does talk. NSF has made a tremendous effort over the
past few years (PEET, PBI, TOL, REVSYS, LINNE) to boost systematics and
taxonomy in general. It is not just the monetary support, but also the
impact on what these programs mean to the funding bodies in Washington. I
am almost certain that we would have had a difficult time getting your
position funded without this history of support.

Remember (and this is based entirely on an unresearched speculation),
before PEET and a little bit into it, taxonomy and insect systematics as a
whole was in a horrible state of decline. Positions were being lost
everywhere. We have seen new positions at USDA (three hymenopterists [one
recent and two in the process], CDFA (a few recent replacement positions),
University of Vermont (albeit a molecular systematist), UC Berkeley, and
Michigan State University (and probably more).

Do we need more positions, yes. Do we need more taxonomy positions, yes.
How do we accelerate this? I do not know, other than being productive, and
letting people know what we do and how neat it is!

Cheers,

John







John D. Pinto
Professor Emeritus
Department of Entomology
University of California, Riverside

Current Address:

P.O. Box 2266
Waldport, Oregon  97394