“Systematics is sick”

So says a committee of the UK House of Lords:

Systematic biology and taxonomy – the science of describing and identifying plants and animals – is in critical decline and the Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS) must act before it is too late.

Of course, this is not the first time this has been said, and recommendations made before have not been acted upon:

“Systematic biology appears to be suffering the consequences of a situation where diffuse responsibility (among government departments) results in no responsibility,” the report says.

Concerns about the state of the discipline expressed by the taxonomic community have gone “largely unheard by the Government and by the research councils”, the committee says. It explicitly criticises the Natural Environment Research Council (Nerc) for sending out “confused” messages about the basis on which the council is providing funding for research in the area. It calls on the council to make a “clear statement” setting out its approach. The report also recommends more dialogue with researchers on priorities for the field; that efforts to attract young researchers be increased; and that research councils and institutions do more to harness the potential of web-based taxonomy.

The inquiry is the committee’s third on the topic in 15 years. Previous recommendations had not been acted upon, Lord Sutherland said.

Given the crucial importance of systematics in ecological analyses, this is rather like medicine not funding any research into pathogens or nutritionists not researching food types. Nerc replied

A Nerc spokeswoman said the organisation did fund some taxonomic research where it was “required to answer important scientific questions” and Nerc had provided supplementary evidence to the inquiry to clarify this. She added that Nerc would be addressing recommendations made in the report through the Government’s formal response.

Yeah, right.

In the meantime, a new journal, Zookeys, has been started as an open access journal for the description of new taxa. In an editorial, the editors say

ZooKeys will consider for publication works in taxonomy in the widest sense, i.e., new descriptions of taxa, if they are accomplished with proper diagnoses, keys and/or revision of at least the species-group level; taxonomic revisions of extant (or “recent’’) and fossil animal groups; checklists and catalogues; phylogenetic and evolutionary analyses; papers in descriptive and/or historical biogeography; methodology papers; data mining and literature surveys; monographs, conspectus, atlases; collections of papers, Festschrift volumes, and conference proceedings.

Papers containing identification keys will be accepted with priority. Extensive manuscripts consisting mostly of keys will be considered for publishing, as well.

Unlike many OA journals, Zookeys will consider waiving author’s fees in the case of those who are retired or otherwise not working with research funding. This means that good work done by those who are without research funds can publish. Good one.

Also, do check out Carl Zimmer’s piece about Darwin, Linnaeus and some guy with a sleep deficit.

Hat tip to Ecology and Policy.