[Taxacom] Why Taxonomy does NOT matter

[Patrick Alexander]

Stephen Thorpe wrote:
> below is an interesting insider look into the mentality of funders, as opposed 
> to just scientists [this is meant to be a neutral remark, without any negative 
> connotations]. Clearly, funding applications do need to be ranked somehow, given 
> limited funds and (presumably) too many applications. However, looking at the 
> output of, say, the journal, Molecular Phylogenetics & Evolution, I just don't 
> see any evidence of prioritisation of projects which particularly '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' ... no, I  just see projects on any old topic, the only common 
> factor being methodological, i.e., they use the latest technology. So, I put it 
> to you all that, in practice, the value of a project is largely determined by 
> the methodology used ...
>   

I would be reluctant to draw any sweeping conclusions from the fact that 
papers in Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution involve molecular 
phylogenetics.

Regards,
Patrick Alexander