101. Taxonomy and systematics in biodiversity research
- Author
-
Hendrik Segers and Koen Martens
- Subjects
Convention ,Water body ,Fresh water ,Ecology ,Inductive research ,Biodiversity ,Applied research ,Science policy ,Biology ,Descriptive research ,Data science - Abstract
Water is life, and millions of people, mainly chil-dren, die each year because they use fresh water ofbad quality (www.who.com). Water qualitydepends on, and can be determined by, extantdiversity of organisms within the water body. Thefall and decline of biodiversity levels in freshwatersis therefore an issue of more than academic inter-est, as has been pointed out correctly byDe Meester & Declerck (2005). Their opinion pa-per analyses the ways in which scientists can re-spond to the needs of society, by formulatingpriorities in research on aquatic (freshwater) bio-diversity. It is pleasing to see that their views takeseveral time scales into account, i.e. they makesuggestions for a short-term science policy, butalso take into account the needs of future gener-ations, a view all too often neglected.Hypotheses and databasesThe Meester & Declerck (loc.cit.) confirm the needof both fundamental and applied research, andpoint out that both approaches need to havequality as their first criterion. However, they con-tinue by saying that good quality fundamentalresearch must an sich mostly (read always) behypothesis driven; supporting purely descriptiveresearchmustbeavoidedasmuchaspossible.Suchviews are pervasive in limnological and ecological(ecosystem) research, but they fall short of beingadequate for this and several other research disci-plines as well. Moreover, there is a small problemwith hypothesis-testing research: where do thesehypotheses come from? Mostly this issue is dis-missed off-handedly: it doesn’t matter very muchwhere they come from, as long as we formulatethem so that they can be tested. We argue thatinductive research, gathering descriptive informa-tion arranged in large databases, will showgeneralised patterns that allow the formulation oftestable hypotheses. As such, inductive (descrip-tive) science is an essential part of hypothesis dri-ven research. Descriptive research provides the fuelon which the hypothesis-testing engine must run.Unfortunately, it is increasingly difficult toobtain funding for inductive research, unless weare talking about huge and flashy projects thatappeal to the imagination, such as the Hubbletelescope in space and the human genome project.Also, it is becoming increasingly difficult to pub-lish the results of descriptive research projects, asinternational journals, including Hydrobiologia,increasingly shy away from it because it is thoughtthat such papers are bad for impact factors. Sev-eral initiatives resulting from the Convention onBiological Diversity, such as the Global Biodiver-sity Initiative (GBIF) set up international net-works that will have as main goal to manage,integrate and analyse large databases. This type ofwork must continue to receive support, eventhough it will for many years fall short of therequirement to do ‘hypothesis-based’ research. Bydatamining existing literature, such projects willvalidate past research investment and will makeexisting data available for future meta-analyses.All of that is important and essential for researchon biodiversity (Schram, 2004).However, very few initiatives allow for the col-lection of new data of this type, and mostdescriptivesurveysmustbedone‘ontheside’,orbesneaked into more applied projects. It is vital thatsuch research receives support in its own standing.Taxonomy and phylogenyA case-in-point, where reduced recognition ofinductive sciences becomes a real problem, is insystematic research, which includes both
- Published
- 2006
- Full Text
- View/download PDF