[Taxacom] Survey Results: Dealing with Sensitive Species Occurrence Data

taxacom2 at achapman.org taxacom2 at achapman.org
Tue Jul 11 17:30:33 CDT 2006

Anita, I think this is no difference to deciding who one can trust in life.  One has to make a judgement in each case, but most of us err on the side of being reasonably trusting first off, otherwise we would all have bars on our windows and live behind huge fences with guard dogs.  Yes, I know some do, and that is probably equivalent to those who don't release any of their data - the only truly safe way, but then why are we making the collections in the first place - perhaps that relates to having a good quality of life. Not to say we don't take some precautions and lock our doors and perhaps have house alarms or house safes for important documents and valuables, just as we need to take some precautions for protecting sensitive data.

The question was not asked explicitly in the survey because we decided we were unlikely to get any useable responses, and wanted to keep the number of questions as small as possible so that we would get the maximum number of responses.

If anyone out there does have some ideas on how to do what Anita asks, then please discuss them here and we will add them to the final reports.



>From "Anita F. Cholewa" <chole001 at umn.edu> on 11 Jul 2006:

> Regarding data on sensitive species ... Something I have always grappled
> with is how do database holders (museums, herbaria, etc.) decide whether
> a data requester's reasons are honest?  How do we decide on someone 
> else's motives?  Oh yes, I'll trust colleagues known to me.   But not 
> all scientists or government agents are always honest and sometimes 
> scientists and others get carried away by new species (remember the new 
> orchid fiasco some years back) and then of course several "amateur" 
> naturalists are quite honorable and trustworthy.  How do you decide that
> a data requester deserves to get the sensitive species data?  I didn't 
> see this question directly addressed in the questionaire.
> __________
> Anita F. Cholewa, Ph.D.
> Curator of the herbarium
> Bell Museum of Natural History
> University of Minnesota
> 1445 Gortner Ave
> ST PAUL MN 55108 USA
> taxacom2 at achapman.org wrote:
> >Dear all.
> >
> >Apologies for Cross posting
> >
> >We would like to thank all those who responded to the Survey on Dealing
> with
> >Sensitive Species Occurrence Data conducted on SurveyMonkey earlier
> this
> >year.  It is obvious from the response that this is an issue of concern
> to
> >many. We would now like to share a summary of the results with you and
> >others who may be interested.
> >
> >The report is now available on the GBIF Web site at
> >http://www.gbif.org/prog/digit/sensitive_data/
> >
> >We are now preparing a draft report with options and recommendations
> based
> >on these results and other discussions and research with the aim of
> >developing best practice guidelines for institutions on how they may
> deal
> >with sensitive data (including generalizing, etc.).
> >
> >The draft document will form the basis of a targeted workshop to be
> held
> >later in 2006. A final document and recommendations will then be
> produced.
> >
> >If you have any comments, references to published information on the
> topic,
> >or ideas and suggestions, please do not hesitate to send these to the
> author
> >at sensitive.data at gbif.org or discuss them here on Taxacom
> >
> >We would also like to receive comments from users of biodiversity
> information on what restrictions generalization may place on any of
> their analyses.
> >
> >regards
> >
> >Arthur D. Chapman
> >Consultant to GBIF on Dealing with Sensitive Species Occurrence Data
> >sensitive.data at gbif.org
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Taxacom mailing list
> >Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> >http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >  
> >

More information about the Taxacom mailing list