[Taxacom] Funding by NSF for taxonomy and phylogenetics compared

[Dan Lahr]

Hi all,

Though these seem interesting, uplifting data, there are (at least) two
issues in taking them at face value:

1. What is the demand in each column? It would be more enlightening to know
how many dollars were requested and what was efectivelly granted.  If
demand is significantly lower in "pure taxonomy", as expected due to the
declining numbers of taxonomists (if this decline is indeed true), then the
rate of funding is actually higher.

2. Are the actual projects on the left hand side purely taxonomic and the
ones on the right hand side purely phylogenetics? Hardly so, there is
probably a lot of overlap.  Many of these may also be on completely
unrelated areas.


best,

dan

__________________________________
Daniel J. G. Lahr
PhD, Assist. Prof.
Dept of Zoology, Univ. of Sao Paulo, Brazil
Office number: + 55 (11) 3091 0948
http://www.ib.usp.br/zoologia/lahr/


On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 3:06 PM, Richard Zander <Richard.Zander at mobot.org>
wrote:

>
> I have submitted over the years various diatribes and Jeremiads to Taxacom
> against the outrages of phylogenetics. Some Taxacomers have reassured us
> that phylogenetics is a passing fad, and will fade away like the morning
> dew, or change into something deep and refreshing.
>
> Just to check with reality, I searched the funding database in NSF for the
> words "phylogeny" and "taxonomy" in the titles or abstracts for the last 5
> years. The results, which I tabulated in Excel, are:
>
>         Phylogeny                                       Taxonomy
> 2015    33611140                                2015    16574900
> 2014    23649263                                2014    14951327
> 2013    11091123                                2013    12055369
> 2012    8052574                         2012    16439643
> 2011    8801433                         2011    22627716
>
> total   85205533                                total   82648955
>
> Thus, projects about "phylogeny" and those about "taxonomy" are about
> equally funded over the last 5 years at $82 to 85 million dollars.
> Taxonomy seems to be holding steady at around $12-14 million per year, but
> phylogeny has had a burst of popularity among NSF grantors, doubling in
> funding during 2013-2014, and then increasing in 2015 by another 10 million
> dollars. It is presently funded at double the rate of taxonomy.
>
> Some have said that phylogenetics research usually includes good taxonomy.
> Check the pages of top phylogenetics journals and see if you agree with
> them that phylogenetics contributes to taxonomic knowledge in the classical
> sense.
>
> -------
> Richard H. Zander
> Missouri Botanical Garden - 4344 Shaw Blvd. - St. Louis - Missouri - 63110
> - USA
> richard.zander at mobot.org<mailto:richard.zander at mobot.org>
> Web sites: http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/bfna/bfnamenu.htm and
> http://www.mobot.org/plantscience/resbot/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Celebrating 28 years of Taxacom in 2015.
>