[Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter

Wed Apr 20 09:21:26 CDT 2011

So, John, are you actually agreeing with me, or are
you, like biologists in geneal, disagreeing?
Thus you have proven my point.

We are collectively so busy looking for and finding the
points of disagreement, and then arguing, that we do
not seem to look for to find the common issues of
agreement.

Are we afraid that one point of disagreement might
sneak past us?

Sure, each of us works well with a number of other
biologists, especially the ones who for the most part
we like as individuals, and who agree with us.

I understand that in some states of the US that the
black-footed ferret is protected, but not in the next
state.  Here in Alberta, we have few grizzly bears,
and the provincial govt is weighing whether or not
we should allow a hunting season on grizzlies.
Next door in BC, there are oodles of grizzlies and
the hunting/no hunting issue does not arise.

We can sluff all this off onto politics, but we as
biologists have not been strong enough in our
collective voices to put a clear message to the
provincial politicians.

And that, sir, is my observation.  If we cannot
agree in these issues locally, how would or
will we ever do it on major issues that involve
principles, money and such nationally and
internationally?

Is it more important that your view that
orang utans are more closely related to humans
than are chimpanzees, or is the bigger issue
that we, as biologists, have a world agreement
among us to save both the habitat and the
orang utans?

And while we argue, the orang utans get the
short end of the stick.

So, I leave it with you: why cannot biologists
get their heads together to agree on major
issues?

Robin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Grehan" <jgrehan at sciencebuff.org>
To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 7:42 AM
Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter

>I think this is a bit of a misrepresentation of biologists, at least
> 'biologists' in general. I certainly have collaborations with many other
> biologists to solve problems.
>
> If anything can have a pernicious effect on greater collaboration it is
> competitive funding that helps create and support cliques competing for
> those resources.
>
>
> The flowing assertion can be circular. How do we know that biologists do
> not project their results as beneficial to funders? Because they are not
> funded. Why are they not funded? Because they failed to projected their
> results... etc.
>
> "Biologists seem to be so tied into their own needs that they do not
> project the results of their works in such a way that politicians and
> other
> funders can see the benefits of the results to humankind."
>
> Actually some sectors of biology do very well for funding - e.g. health
> sciences - not that the research is necessarily any better (David Hull
> once asserted that medical research was the best funded and also the
> worst science).
>
> John Grehan
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Robin Leech
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 9:13 AM
> To: Andrew Mitchell; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter
>
> Andrew,
>
> You have started to hit on the reason taxonomists do not get money.
>
> I am a P.Biol. in Alberta, and until 2009, I was the Executive Director
> of
> the Society.
>
> It was said in jest, but there is a lot of truth in it.  Note the
> following:
>
> If you have a problem, and you give it to 10 engineers to solve, they
> will forego their differences, work together and give you the answer.
>
> If you have a problem, and you give it to 10 biologists to solve, they
> will each take the problem, not work together, and you may wind up
> with 10 answers.  Mind you, each answer may be correct in itself, but
> there has been no effort to produce a common solution all can agree
> upon.
>
> I have for years mulled the reason for this: is it that the training of
> biologists
> "to work independently to obtain independent results" produces these
> souls who do not seem to work will with one another, or, is it the
> nature of those who go into biology, and merely strengthened by the
> kind of training/education they get?
>
> When the astronomers go for their money, they make the case that all
> of humankind will profit from the information gained about the universe.
>
> Biologists seem to be so tied into their own needs that they do not
> project the results of their works in such a way that politicians and
> other
> funders can see the benefits of the results to humankind.
>
> Robin
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Andrew Mitchell" <Andrew.Mitchell at austmus.gov.au>
> To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 1:17 AM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter
>
>
> Hi All,
>
> I think the real reason that astronomers can get huge grants and
> taxonomists
> can't is that taxonomists/systematists are such a fractious bunch they
> just
> can't help but shoot themselves in the foot by protesting vociferously
> against any emerging large initiatives. A case in point is barcoding.
> The
> concept has caught the public's imagination and could bring megabucks to
>
> taxonomy, but instead of seeing the possibilities, getting involved and
> working together to integrate and improve this fledgling system many
> taxonomists would rather fire shots from the sidelines.  Have you ever
> seen
> a documentary on TV where say radioastronomers slam gamma-ray
> astronomers as
> having no understanding of their subdiscipline? Of course not! They
> would
> rather work together to build the multi-billion dollar SKA that they can
> all
> use.
>
> Now that I'm sticking my neck out I may as well add that funding models
> which favour "innovation" over all else are partly to blame. This is why
> we
> have so many different initiatives digitising taxonomy (checklists,
> species
> pages & images, the heritage literature) with limited interactivity -
> each
> successive proposal must demonstrate that it is doing something
> "innovative", i.e. different from existing projects.
>
> OK, my flame guards are up so fire away!
>
> Andrew
>
> Andrew Mitchell
> Integrative Systematist
> Entomology
>
> Australian Museum
> 6 College Street Sydney NSW 2010 Australia
> t 61 2 9320 6346   f 61 2 9320 6042
> www.australianmuseum.net.au
>
>
> ########################################################################
> #############
> This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared
> by MailMarshal
> ########################################################################
> #############
>
> Rituals of Seduction: Birds of Paradise
> Are we more alike than you think?
> Exhibition 9 April - 7 August 2011
>
>
>
> The Australian Museum.
>
>
> The views in this email are those of the user and do not necessarily
> reflect
> the views of the Australian Museum. The information contained in this
> email
> message and any accompanying files is or may be confidential and is for
> the
> intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, any use,
>
> dissemination, reliance, forwarding, printing or copying of this email
> or
> any attached files is unauthorised. If you are not the intended
> recipient,
> please delete it and notify the sender. The Australian Museum does not
> guarantee the accuracy of any information contained in this e-mail or
> attached files. As Internet communications are not secure, the
> Australian
> Museum does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this
> message
> or attached files.
>
> Please consider the environment before printing this email.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------
>
>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
> 