[Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter

Thu Apr 21 11:20:04 CDT 2011

As David says, there are these other criteria that play into NSF funding. 
Despite those other criteria, NSF has done a spectacular job funding
taxonomy, through the PEET and RevSys programs, as well as the Biotic
Surveys programs. Looking historically, funding for taxonomy from NSF is
probably as good as it's ever been.

The problem is NOT funding, as far as I can tell, the problem is JOBS (i.
e. i. stable futures for people who invest in this enterprise). Museums
and universities are simply not hiring very many people to do classical
taxonomy, unless they can also bring the other criteria David mentions.
There is a serious cost to this in terms of available expertise, but I
think the finger needs to be pointed at the poor public support for higher
education, and the subsequent adoption of an aggressive business model at
academic institutions.

Jim

> I went back to Fabian's original post.  There is an important distinction
> that wasn't made.  Taxonomy matters, but that doesn't mean that all
> taxonomic projects matter the same amount.  There were and still are
> plenty of taxonomic projects that get funded.  The others weren't denied
> funding because they were taxonomic projects.  They just weren't the best
> proposals for taxonomic projects.
>
> I was an NSF Program Director in Systematic Biology for three years.
> There were many more taxonomic (and other) proposals than could be funded
> so we always asked 'Why this study on this taxon and place rather than the
> other ones?  What value added does it offer beyond species description
> (which they all presumably did)?  Will it illuminate evolutionary
> processes, assist in ecological studies, address societal issues, produce
> information resources needed by others, generate high-quality and
> accessible vouchers and databases, and have education value for students
> or the general public?'  To get funded a proposal had to score well on
> most of these criteria, not just being good taxonomy.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> [mailto:taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Fabian Haas
> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2011 4:48 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: [Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> my apologies for the subject of this email, but I thing I have your
> attention. I am a taxonomist myself, and working a lot to make taxonomy
> matter on various plat forms, so no need to convince me about the
> importance of taxonomy.
>
> What I am trying to find out i , why we seemingly have not succeeded in
> gathering more support for taxonomy in the last 10 yrs or so? Although
> we have high political support for the CBD, a variety of interesting
> projects, like EOL and GBIF, and many other plat forms distributing
> taxonomic information. These success have little contributed -in my
> opinion- to improve funding for the production of taxonomic knowledge.
>
> Instead of lamenting again, and preaching to the converted, I would like
> to find out, why the donors dont seem to react, what are their reasons
> not to fund taxonomic work, at all, or at a level would be useful. So I
> am looking for their reasons, why they dont seem to receive our message
> that we need to taxonomy. And also why taxonomic aspects are often
> deleted form projects when money becomes tight, more often than other
> section. Taxonomy seems expensible.
>
> I do have some suspicions, like they dont know what it is, they simply
> dont like the topic, they think everything is known, they thing we dont
> need it anyways, its a public good and so available, taxonomy would be
> complete, etc.
>
> I will certainly try to talk the donors informally to find out what they
> think, but what I would like to ask this community, if you have any
> first hand experience, first hand statements on that. I will treat all
> information confidential if wished, and keep informant and, more
> importantly donor, anonymously. It is not about blaming someone, but I
> would like to better understand their perspective, with the ultimate
> goal to improve our communication strategy, and better address them. We
> did work a lot on our/taxonomist communication and I believe all the
> necessary answers are ready, collected by BioNET etc, but this change of
> perspective -ask the listeners why they dont listen- seems worth wile to
> me.
>
> So Why does Taxonomy NOT matter??
>
> Best & Looking forward to hearing from you!
>
>   Fabian
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> 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
>

-- 
James B. Whitfield
Department of Entomology
320 Morrill Hall
505 S. Goodwin Avenue
University of Illinois
Urbana, IL 61801
http://www.life.illinois.edu/whitfield