The Linnean Society of London was delighted to welcome the Earl of Selborne on 11th June 2009 to speak on “The House of Lords Reports on Systematics and Taxonomy”.
Lord Selborne began his talk by commenting that the recent House of Lords Science and Technology Committee Report on Systematics and Taxonomy, published in November 2008 had been the third such report. The first, published in 1992, followed an inquiry chaired by Lord Dainton, the second (2002) followed an inquiry chaired by Baroness Walmsley and the most recent committee had been chaired by Lord Sutherland. Before reviewing the recommendations from each of these reports, Lord Selborne reflected that many of the thoughts, comments and recommendations in all three reports had been related to similar issues.
The first inquiry (1992) had been convened to discuss issues in systematics and taxonomy in part due to effective lobbying by the Linnean Society and the taxonomic community who had highlighted a number of major issues of concern. These included the persistent and consistent drop in core funding for major institutions, a concern that Research Councils did not appear to understand the funding requirements of the sector, long-term attrition of University staff, concerns regarding the age-profile of taxonomists and systematists and dwindling expertise related to particular taxa including mycology and lichenology.
The publication of this report coincided with the Rio Earth Summit, and the adoption of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The taxonomy and systematic community were identified as crucial to achieving the long-term policy targets and as such the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee recommended the formation of a UK Systematics Forum, and urged NERC to undertake a review of scientific opportunities in taxonomy and establish funding for training and research. All of these recommendations were supported and the training and research funding provided by NERC was particularly important in developing the careers of many of the taxonomists now at the cutting edge of their fields in the UK today. The committee’s fourth recommendation – guaranteed maintenance of core-funding for the community in the long term- was not accepted.
Lord Selborne reflected that by the time of the second inquiry in 2002, many of the initiatives prompted by the 1992 report had ceased. This prompted the committee to consider if there was a continuing decline in systematic biology and if so, did it matter? With an increase in national and international policies which would require the expertise of taxonomists, the committee in 2002 recommended additional funding (not accepted), an increased in Darwin initiative funding (accepted and actioned) and asked the systematic biology community to demonstrate the use and relevance of systematic biology. The Linnean Society and the Systematics Association collaborated with BBSRC to develop the COSYST scheme providing short-term funding for new collaborative research in systematics, but Lord Selborne concluded that the overall response of the community to the recommendations of the report was disappointing, in that no organisation came forward to produce strategic leadership, coherence and long-term funding measures for the sector.
An increasing government focus on environmental sustainability, a heightened awareness of the impact of climate change on biodiversity and the emergence of the concept of “ecosystem services” all prompted the most recent third inquiry and subsequent report in 2008. This addressed two questions, “Is systematic biology in a fit state to generate the essential taxonomic information required by the emergence of the concept of ecosystem services?” and, “Does the UK have the skills available to be able to understand and predict the impact of climate change on biodiversity whilst continuing to meet the ongoing needs of biodiversity conservation and the broader needs of taxonomy, as a discipline which underpins all aspects of biology?”
The recent report emphasised the importance of the UK within the global taxonomic community and the obligation upon the holders of important taxonomic collections to make these available to the user community, an approach already taken by the Linnean Society. The evidence presented to the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee drew attention to concerns about the further erosion of academic infrastructure, the absence of a strategic programme of investment in research training in taxonomy, and a more general lack of awareness of the nature of the subject of taxonomy and systematics. It highlighted the critical lack of taxonomic expertise in many taxonomic groups, the lack of basic checklists and the implication of this for responding to both national and international targets. The report also emphasised the very positive steps which had been made in developing a web-based taxonomy, including the NERC project, Creating an E-Taxonomy. Similarly, the National Biodiversity Network had been highlighted as a mechanism which provided access to thousands of biological records, many provided by volunteers.
In its recommendations, the Committee reflected on the rapid international developments in the delivery of web-based taxonomy and questioned if the UK-based taxonomic community was doing enough to ensure that there was no confusion related to these initiatives. This was accepted and a roadmap for delivery of internet-based taxonomy funded by BBSRC and NERC, was currently being developed in conjunction with the Natural History Museum. In response to concerns raised regarding the number of taxonomists in the UK, NERC has agreed to commission a study to ascertain this number and explore trends in numbers. The Natural History Museum has also agreed to facilitate dialogue between the users and producers of taxonomy to try and resolve areas of confusion. The Committee urged NERC to support research to develop a functional interface between new and traditional taxonomic techniques and urged DEFRA to ensure a robust funding model was put in place to ensure the continuity of the National Biodiversity Network.
Lord Selborne reflected that the response of the Government to the Committees report emphasised the fundamental importance of these fields to our understanding of the natural world and ecosystem services, and that an effective response to issues such as climate change and environmental degradation will require those with expertise in systematic and taxonomy. There remained however two fundamental issues of concern – a lack of funding and no leading Government department for the sector. There is currently no strategic programme of investment in research or training in taxonomy; in many other countries infrastructural maintenance costs are provided as part of funding initiatives; and the responsibility for the sector is diffuse across a number of Government departments. Lord Selborne concluded that both of these issues needed to be addressed.
Following a lively period of questions and discussion including the need to agree a common roadmap for taxonomy and systematics in the UK, to identify the “users” of taxonomy and to engage in multi-disciplinary debate about the applied nature of taxonomy and systematics, the President drew the meeting to a close, and thanked Lord Selborne for his most interesting lecture.