Taxonomists and the CBD.

In their Editorial “Eaxonomy: impediment or expedient?”, Q. D. Wheeler et al. make a strong case for the internationalization of taxonomy through a cyber-infrastructure that would give taxonomists and museums access to the right tools for documenting species diversity (16 Jan., p. [285][1]). Most biologists are familiar with the biodiversity crisis, but not with the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), not mentioned by Wheeler et al. , which would govern such a globalized taxonomy ([1][2]). The CBD was instrumental in creating a global awareness of the “taxonomic impediment”—the incomplete knowledge of taxa and the dearth of taxonomists worldwide ([2][3]). This impediment is most acute in tropical, developing nations, which contain most of the world's biodiversity, yet produce far fewer taxonomists than developed countries. Two crucial ways to address the problem are (i) increased study of taxa in developing nations and (ii) increased taxonomic training in developing nations. The CBD provides a regulatory framework for these solutions ([3][4]), yet most taxonomists are little aware of this new “global regime” that affects their professional lives. With the highest percentage of taxonomists of developed nations, the United States must shoulder much of the responsibility in overcoming the incomplete knowledge of taxa and the dearth of taxonomists in biodiversity-rich countries. This necessitates an understanding of the CBD by U.S. taxonomists. Because of greater institutional engagement, U.S. taxonomists at herbaria, museums, botanic gardens, and zoos tend to be more aware of the CBD than those at universities; however, U.S. universities need to become more engaged with the CBD because most U.S. taxonomists work at universities. Universities, taxonomists, and funding agencies must work together to build the institutional support necessary to address CBD-related issues, such as the regulatory maze associated with collecting biological samples, and the international collaboration and training required to do so. If not seen in a larger context, these regulations tend to be viewed as annoying bureaucratic hurdles whose ethical and sociopolitical dimensions are invisible ([4][5]). 1. 1.[↵][6] See [www.un.org/geninfo/bp/enviro.html][7]. 2. 2.[↵][8] See CBD Conference of the Parties II/8 decision (available at [www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.aspx?m=cop-02&d=08][9]) “The Darwin Declaration” of the Australian Biological Resources Study (available at [www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/publications/other/darwin/][10]). 3. 3.[↵][11] See related article of the CBD: Article 7, Identification and Monitoring; Article 12, Research and Training; Article 15, Access to Genetic Resources; Article 16, Access to and Transfer of Genetic Resources; Article 17, Exchange of Information; Article 18, Technical and Scientific Co-operation (available at [www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp][12]). 4. 4.[↵][13] 1. A. C. Revkin , “Biologists sought a treaty; now they fault it,” N.Y. Times , 7 May 2002, p. F1. # Response {#article-title-2} Geeta et al. express concern that our call for a taxonomic cyber-infrastructure was made without cognizance of the CBD or the urgent needs for taxonomic capacity in developing nations. Space constraints prohibited acknowledgment of the impressive and important gains made as a result of international activities growing from the CBD. The so-called taxonomic impediment can only be removed when taxonomy is transformed into a modern, efficient science. Our proposal is to address what taxonomists need to do so that they can work rapidly and efficiently through a virtual cyber-tool that opens access to sophisticated digital instruments, specimens, data, and literature—the sum of taxonomic and natural history knowledge. While this “tool” would permit taxonomists in the United States to do their work much better and faster, a major impact of the proposal would be to help level the playing field for scientists at smaller institutions and in developing nations, through remote access to virtual libraries, museums, and knowledge bases. Another positive impact would be the facilitation of multi-investigator, multi-institutional, and multi-national collaborations to accelerate the pace of species discovery, description, analysis, and classification, again to the immediate benefit of colleagues and students in developing nations. The kind of community cooperation described by Geeta et al. is, as they suggest, essential to success on all these fronts. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.303.5656.285 [2]: #ref-1 [3]: #ref-2 [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #ref-4 [6]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1. in text" [7]: http://www.un.org/geninfo/bp/enviro.html [8]: #xref-ref-2-1 "View reference 2. in text" [9]: http://www.biodiv.org/decisions/default.aspx?m=cop-02&d=08 [10]: http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/publications/other/darwin/ [11]: #xref-ref-3-1 "View reference 3. in text" [12]: http://www.biodiv.org/convention/articles.asp [13]: #xref-ref-4-1 "View reference 4. in text"