This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/mar/13/lets-sing-the-praises-of-taxonomists-who-help-us-make-sense-of-our-world

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Let's sing the praises of taxonomists, who help us make sense of our world Let's sing the praises of taxonomists, who help us make sense of our world
(6 months later)
As with musicians, painters, poets, As with musicians, painters, poets, philosophers, sportspeople and possibly those seeking further proof of the Higgs Boson, taxonomists might seem dispensable.
philosophers, sportspeople and possibly those seeking further proof of the Taxonomists are people who earn their living from naming and classifying life. With 9m of the 11m or so living organisms on Earth yet to be catalogued they still have some work to do, but in an economically rationalised world this may not be seen as a huge priority.
Higgs Boson, taxonomists might seem dispensable. Similarly, intriguing questions about the origins of life and why our planet is blessed with such a variety of life forms could remain unanswered. Fascinating discoveries about our world, such as the dinosaur-tree Wollemi Pine, the glow-in-the-dark cockroach and a pygmy sloth living on its own Caribbean island don’t contribute majorly to GDP. One could argue that humans would survive, albeit with diminished lives, if that’s all taxonomists did.
Taxonomists are people who earn their On the other hand, having someone who can distinguish between the different mites that infect honeybees has already saved $66m through better targeted biosecurity and management. Similarly, being able to detect early and accurately potential weed and pest species is worth many millions of dollars to farmers and park managers.
living from naming and classifying life. With 9m of the 11m or so Telling farmers on the Eyre Peninsula which canola varieties they should plant – based on the mix of fungal pathogens found in last year’s stubble – depends on accurate taxonomy, and it is saving an estimated $18m a year in crop losses. And in recent years, 3,000 different kind of sponge have been discovered on the Great Barrier Reef and nearby, 70% of them new to science. As part of the taxonomic survey of these and other marine creatures, over 1,500 new bioactive chemicals have been isolated – any one of which might be the next cure for cancer or obesity.
living organisms on Earth yet to be catalogued they still have There is a clear and urgent need for taxonomy, and the taxonomists who do it. Which is why we should all be interested in a debate raging in the scientific arena around whether worldwide our taxonomic effort is increasing or decreasing. In Australia, we know we are losing taxonomists at the rate of two to three per year, and the workforce is definitely ageing. Worldwide, we are unarguably well shy of the effort needed to catalogue Earth. It’s been estimated that to discover and describe all species would take 300,000 taxonomists some 1,200 years, at a cost of more than $350bn. And this is a conservative estimate.
some work to do, but in an economically rationalised world this may not be seen Do we need to describe everything? With extinction running at 100–1,000 times what is called the “natural rate”, you could argue that we are fighting a losing battle and should cut our losses. But if we are to direct our limited resources into conserving the most important parts of our biological diversity, how do we know which species and systems are the most important? Taxonomy. Not always the classical approach with Latin names and pictures, but we need to map the diversity and be able to compare one area with another. This should concern economists, too: contemplate the global churn of $100bn dollars generated by coffee, and the potential loss of 99.7% of Arabica’s natural habitat by 2080.
as a huge priority.
Similarly, intriguing questions about the origins
of life and why our planet is blessed with such a variety of life forms could
remain unanswered. Fascinating discoveries
about our world, such as the dinosaur-tree Wollemi Pine, the glow-in-the-dark
cockroach
and a pygmy sloth
living on its own Caribbean island don’t contribute majorly to GDP. One could argue that humans would survive,
albeit with diminished lives, if that’s all taxonomists did.
On the other
hand, having someone who can distinguish between the different mites that
infect honeybees has already saved $66m through better targeted
biosecurity and management. Similarly, being able to detect early and
accurately potential weed and pest species is worth many millions of dollars
to farmers and park managers.
Telling farmers on the Eyre Peninsula which
canola varieties they should plant – based on the mix of fungal pathogens found
in last year’s stubble – depends on accurate taxonomy, and it is saving
an estimated $18m a year in crop losses. And in recent years, 3,000 different kind
of sponge have been discovered on the Great Barrier Reef and nearby, 70% of
them new to science. As part of the taxonomic survey of these and other marine
creatures, over 1,500 new bioactive chemicals have been isolated – any one of
which might be the next cure for cancer or obesity.
There is a clear and urgent need for
taxonomy, and the taxonomists who do it. Which is why we should all be interested
in a debate
raging in the scientific arena around whether worldwide our taxonomic effort is
increasing or decreasing.
In Australia, we know
we are losing taxonomists at the rate of two to three per year, and
the workforce is definitely ageing. Worldwide, we are unarguably well shy of the
effort needed to catalogue Earth. It’s been estimated
that to discover and describe all species would take 300,000 taxonomists some
1,200 years, at a cost of more than $350bn. And this is a conservative
estimate.
Do we need to describe everything? With
extinction running
at 100–1,000 times what is called the “natural rate”, you could argue that
we are fighting a losing battle and should cut our losses. But if we are to
direct our limited resources into conserving the most important parts of our
biological diversity, how do we know which species and systems are the most
important? Taxonomy. Not always the classical approach with Latin names and
pictures, but we need to map the diversity and be able to compare one area with
another. This should concern economists, too: contemplate the global churn of $100bn dollars generated by coffee, and the potential
loss of 99.7% of Arabica’s natural habitat by 2080.
Taxonomists these days spend a lot of time reorganising what they already know, creating new ways to access this information and summarising their knowledge in books, apps and talks. All good and worthy stuff, but meanwhile species continue to go extinct and the ones that survive aren’t cataloguing themselves. With DNA sequencing and increasingly powerful computers, there is now more information available for fine-scale sorting of closely related organisms, but the tough decisions still have to be made by specialists. Yet there are few dedicated positions for taxonomists, and it’s hard for them to shine in the open market of science.Taxonomists these days spend a lot of time reorganising what they already know, creating new ways to access this information and summarising their knowledge in books, apps and talks. All good and worthy stuff, but meanwhile species continue to go extinct and the ones that survive aren’t cataloguing themselves. With DNA sequencing and increasingly powerful computers, there is now more information available for fine-scale sorting of closely related organisms, but the tough decisions still have to be made by specialists. Yet there are few dedicated positions for taxonomists, and it’s hard for them to shine in the open market of science.
For starters, the published work of taxonomists doesn’t measure up against their biological colleagues. Not because the quality isn’t good or the science strong enough, just because of the way success is calculated. Taxonomic papers have a comparatively long “half-life”: while a breakthrough medical paper will be cited (listed as a source of information by another scientist) frequently in the first few years and then often barely again, taxonomic papers are cited infrequently, but for hundreds of years. Most publication statistics used for career progression consider only on the first few years since publication.For starters, the published work of taxonomists doesn’t measure up against their biological colleagues. Not because the quality isn’t good or the science strong enough, just because of the way success is calculated. Taxonomic papers have a comparatively long “half-life”: while a breakthrough medical paper will be cited (listed as a source of information by another scientist) frequently in the first few years and then often barely again, taxonomic papers are cited infrequently, but for hundreds of years. Most publication statistics used for career progression consider only on the first few years since publication.
Then there is the lack of recognition for taxonomic science, even by fellow scientists. And I don’t just mean particle physics envy! Taxonomists may gain immortality by having their name appended to a species name (as is the convention in technical papers) but their publications are seldom cited in the reference list of any paper as a source of new information or scientific discovery (both of which are critical parts of species discovery and documentation).Then there is the lack of recognition for taxonomic science, even by fellow scientists. And I don’t just mean particle physics envy! Taxonomists may gain immortality by having their name appended to a species name (as is the convention in technical papers) but their publications are seldom cited in the reference list of any paper as a source of new information or scientific discovery (both of which are critical parts of species discovery and documentation).
In Australia, we have an immense job ahead of us documenting life on our 7,000,000+ square kilometre continent, where more than three-quarters of the native plants and animals are found nowhere else on Earth. In just over 200 years, we have described about a quarter of the estimated half a million or so species. Are there new sources of food, medicine or building materials out there? Of course. Which species can we afford to lose if life as we know it, and pertinently human life, is to continue? What relatives of crop plants will help us survive climate change? How many and which plants do we need to produce oxygen for us to breathe?In Australia, we have an immense job ahead of us documenting life on our 7,000,000+ square kilometre continent, where more than three-quarters of the native plants and animals are found nowhere else on Earth. In just over 200 years, we have described about a quarter of the estimated half a million or so species. Are there new sources of food, medicine or building materials out there? Of course. Which species can we afford to lose if life as we know it, and pertinently human life, is to continue? What relatives of crop plants will help us survive climate change? How many and which plants do we need to produce oxygen for us to breathe?
Scientists need to work more collegiately to recognise the contributions of taxonomists. Science bureaucrats, such as myself, need to keep searching for ways to employ more taxonomists: the raising of a $2m corpus last year by the Royal Botanic Gardens and University of Melbourne through philanthropy is one recent example.Scientists need to work more collegiately to recognise the contributions of taxonomists. Science bureaucrats, such as myself, need to keep searching for ways to employ more taxonomists: the raising of a $2m corpus last year by the Royal Botanic Gardens and University of Melbourne through philanthropy is one recent example.
And as a community, we need to support taxonomy and its practitioners – if not to make our life better, then because our life depends on it.And as a community, we need to support taxonomy and its practitioners – if not to make our life better, then because our life depends on it.