[Taxacom] [TAXACOM] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter

Mon Apr 18 18:45:13 CDT 2011

well ... if you can convince the public that we will all need another place to 
live, when the Earth and Sun finally die, then big business can recoup big 
overheads from public funded space research, and this will help to keep lots of 
people happily employed ...

unfortunately, good ol' fashioned taxonomy just isn't economically viable in 
this way, as it doesn't require expensive equipment, etc., etc.

________________________________
From: "Tony.Rees at csiro.au" <Tony.Rees at csiro.au>
To: stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz; mesibov at southcom.com.au; fhaas at icipe.org
Cc: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Sent: Tue, 19 April, 2011 11:30:23 AM
Subject: RE: [Taxacom] [TAXACOM] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter

Hi all,

I always find it curious that even if taxonomy (i.e. discovering and classifying 
the fundamental units of biodiversity) does not "matter" (i.e., vital bits of 
public infrastructure cease to operate if taxonomists go on strike), astronomy - 
doing the same for stars and other stuff - somehow does. Go figure...

Tony Rees
Manager, Divisional Data Centre,
CSIRO Marine and Atmospheric Research,
GPO Box 1538,
Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia
Ph: 0362 325318 (Int: +61 362 325318)
Fax: 0362 325000 (Int: +61 362 325000)
e-mail: Tony.Rees at csiro.au
Manager, OBIS Australia regional node, http://www.obis.org.au/
Biodiversity informatics research activities: 
http://www.cmar.csiro.au/datacentre/biodiversity.htm
Personal info: 
http://www.fishbase.org/collaborators/collaboratorsummary.cfm?id=1566

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Stephen Thorpe
> Sent: Tuesday, 19 April 2011 8:38 AM
> To: Bob Mesibov; fhaas at icipe.org
> Cc: TAXACOM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [TAXACOM] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter
> 
> I suspect the decline in taxonomy (or, more strictly, the decline in
> recruitment
> of new taxonomists - the older ones are still as active as ever) rests
> firmly on
> economic factors stemming from a change in funding systems, coupled by a
> greater
> preoccupation with citation rates in a more competitive economic
> environment.
> This, to my mind at least, goes some way to explaining the phenomenon of
> "trendy
> science" sucking all the funding until something newer comes along and
> they all
> jump on that bandwagon... In the current economic environment, one might
> expect
> other types of "pure science" to decline also, and be overtaken by more
> applied
> projects with obvious potential economic benefits, or perceived benefits
> for the
> direct welfare of humanity (like "climate change research"). It is
> interesting
> that the GISP has apparently now died due to lack of funding: invasive
> species
> are those which don't have a direct negative economic effect  (unlike pest
> species), but simply outcompete natives in invaded areas, and the ultimate
> effect is largely unknown ...
> 
> Stephen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Bob Mesibov <mesibov at southcom.com.au>
> To: fhaas at icipe.org
> Cc: TAXACOM <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Tue, 19 April, 2011 10:14:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] [TAXACOM] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter
> 
> Getting back to Fabian's original post, we'd probably all agree that the
> reasons
> for the lack of growth in support for taxonomy have more to do with public
> policy issues than scientific ones. But what are those public policy
> issues?
> 
> IMO, taxonomy is tied in public discourse to
> 
> (1) 'public health', 'medical research'
> (2) 'biosecurity', 'food security'
> (3) 'conservation', 'protecting the environment'
> 
> The first 2 are what might be called applied taxonomy and there will
> always be
> some support for it - but only as much as is needed to solve specific
> problems.
> The 3rd has been the packhorse which has carried the heavy idea that we
> need to
> discover and document life on Earth in order to better conserve Nature.
> Much of
> the public yatter about biodiversity started at the Earth Summit in Rio in
> 1992.
> 
> But conservation policy makers realised very early on that taxonomy is
> largely
> irrelevant to conserving Nature. More than anything else they needed lines
> (polygons) on maps which could be starting points for political
> discussions
> about withdrawing land or water from human use. To draw those maps they
> didn't
> need full taxonomic inventories. The policy makers asked 'What's left to
> conserve?', 'Of these X areas, which should get out highest priority for
> conservation?', 'Which reservation proposal will be least politically
> painful to
> implement and cost least to manage?', 'Which introduced species do we have
> a
> hope of controlling?'
> 
> Above and beyond all the discussion is the unavoidable fact that People
> Come
> First in all public policy, and there are 25% more people now than there
> were in
> 1992. Item (3) above is being squeezed out of the picture. Reserves are
> ephemeral in a world where the human demand for land, water and other
> resources
> is constantly growing. (1) and (2) are looming larger, but it can and has
> been
> argued that you don't need taxonomy for applied taxonomy, you just need a
> library of sequences.
> 
> In short, I don't think the promised or hinted support for taxonomy didn't
> materialise at a public policy level because the idea was dumb, or because
> people were afraid of what might be discovered. I think support hasn't
> appeared
> because taxonomy isn't relevant to the Big Agenda, which is growing people
> endlessly at the expense of the natural world. You can find thousands of
> instances of the claim 'people come first' at every level of public policy
> making.
> --
> Dr Robert Mesibov
> Honorary Research Associate
> Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, and
> School of Zoology, University of Tasmania
> Home contact: PO Box 101, Penguin, Tasmania, Australia 7316
> Ph: (03) 64371195; 61 3 64371195
> Webpage: http://www.qvmag.tas.gov.au/?articleID=570
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these
> methods:
> 
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom
> your search terms here
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
> 
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Or (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here