[Taxacom] Encyclopedia of Life & Taxonomist Funding
r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
Fri May 11 14:05:01 CDT 2007
I think Alex has a good point. The web is indeed "littered with
largely content-free biodiversity sites", and the press release is
mostly empty hype.
Some may have seen Mitch Leslie's piece in Science (http://dx.doi.org/
10.1126/science.316.5826.818) that starts:
"Hands up if you've heard this before: An ambitious new project
promises to create an online compendium of all 1.8 million or so
described species. It can already claim participation by premier
institutions, a wad of start-up cash, and huzzahs from biodiversity
guru Edward O. Wilson. Although some confess to a wary sense of déjà
vu, taxonomists hope that the Encyclopedia of Life (EOL) can provide
the long-awaited comprehensive species catalog. Even enthusiasts
agree that it faces some tall hurdles, however, such as signing up
curators and getting permission to use copyrighted material."
So, the challenge is how to populate EoL. In one sense I more
optimist than some on this list, because I think a substantial amount
of content can be generated by harvesting the existing literature and
databases. If done properly, this could populate EoL with useful
information (see http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?
blogID=18671685&postID=114279624660121438 for a simple example).
Regarding money, I suspect given the distributed nature of the
project, the involvement of several institutions, and the overhead
this imposes, a good chunk of the money will not make it's way to
content creators (and I speak as one who will have airfares paid out
of EoL -- I'm sure the money spent on flying me to the US to say "it
sucks" could just as well be spent on generating content...).
I think there are several things to consider. The first is that
taxonomy is but a part of EoL, and I suspect it won't be the major
part -- for most biologists taxonomy is simply a tool for navigating
and retrieving information. Most people probably care more about what
an organism looks like, where it lives, what it eats, etc., than what
to call it.
That said, as David Shorthouse points out on this list and his blog
(http://ispiders.blogspot.com/), EoL could construct an environment
that provides a compelling tool for taxonomists (and others) to work
EoL's success depends in large part on how it's implemented, and how
much people ignore the hype and focus on delivering something useful.
On 11 May 2007, at 19:18, alexwild at email.arizona.edu wrote:
> I agree in broad part with Bjarte's comments that the EoL will
> provide a highly
> useful standardized infrastructure for working taxonomists, and
> that some of
> the criticisms of it miss the mark. However, I do have a couple of
> about the project.
> First, there are a number of existing projects that already form a
> infrastructure for dissemination for systematics and natural history
> information. These, like the EoL, rely on voluntary participation
> on the part
> of taxonomic experts, and years later most of these are virtual
> ghost towns.
> The internet is littered with largely content-free biodiversity
> sites. These
> sites are not infrastructure-limited but content-limited. It isn't
> clear how
> another project to fund more infrastructure but not content will
> avoid their
> fate. I'd love to be proven wrong on this point, but it seems to
> me that the
> mentality of "If we build it they will come..." hasn't worked in
> the past.
> What is needed is a different strategy, not to take the same old
> hole and dig
> it deeper.
> Second, differences in opinion over the EoL are not necessarily a
> divide between
> those younger folks who are familiar with database use and the
> dinosaurs who
> aren't. Rather, it seems to me a divide between those whose career
> fits well with the EoL and those that don't. Not everyone has the
> luxury of a
> museum position that rewards participation in public biodiversity
> Large swaths of the taxonomic expertise that cover the tree of life
> is held by
> people whose desire to contribute is outweighed by the financial
> needs of the
> families they have to support.
> If EoL has hope of covering even a fraction of what the press
> releases claim it
> will, EoL needs to implement a funding body that supports content
> Ideally, this would be in the form of a grant program targeted at
> experts whose
> day jobs don't ordinarily allow for participation in the EoL.
> Otherwise the EoL
> will be like all the other biodiversity projects on the internet:
> of completed taxa floating in a great sea of emptiness.
> Alex Wild
> University of Arizona
> Taxacom mailing list
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Professor Roderic D. M. Page
Editor, Systematic Biology
Graham Kerr Building
University of Glasgow
Glasgow G12 8QP
Phone: +44 141 330 4778
Fax: +44 141 330 2792
email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
Subscribe to Systematic Biology through the Society of Systematic
Biologists Website: http://systematicbiology.org
Search for taxon names: http://darwin.zoology.gla.ac.uk/~rpage/portal/
Find out what we know about a species: http://ispecies.org
Rod's rants on phyloinformatics: http://iphylo.blogspot.com
Rod's rants on ants: http://semant.blogspot.com
More information about the Taxacom