Draft Report NCSE Biodiversity

DRAFT 5 - REVIEWER COPY ONLY – DO NOT CITE 15 June 2010
Creating a Ten-Year Global, Integrative, Multi-

dimensional Biodiversity Initiative
Results of a December 1 – 2, 2009 Workshop: “Enabling

Biodiversity Research: the Roles of Information and Support
Networks”
Acknowledgements
Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 5
Introduction: Biodiversity in a Rapidly Changing World ................................................................................... 7
5
Section I. The Biodiversity Research Support Community .......................................................................... 7
A. The Current Situation: Characterization of the Community
1. . Survey results
2. Perspectives from the workshop
a. Further characterization
b. Priorities, decisionmaking
i. Generally
ii. Specific approaches
c. Strengths, assets and needs
i. Strengths and assets
ii. Needs
d. Issues
i. Data issues
ii. Community issues
iii. Other issues
iv. Proposed Solutions
B. Key Issues of Concern ........................................................................................................................................... 10

1. Barriers to success
2. Unmet needs
3. Capacity
4. Gaps in supporting information

5. Scientific issues
Section II. Key Findings and Recommendations.........................................................................................30

A. Ten-year Goals, Objectives and Deliverables ...................................................................................................... 30
Multi-dimensional integrative research
Research infrastructure and support
B. Achieving Our Goals .............................................................................................................................................. 30
Role of biodiversity research community: Community actions needed
Role of government agencies, foundations and others: government actions needed
Section II. References
Appendices.........................................................................................................................................................37
A. Participants at workshop..........................................................................................................................40
B. Compendium of community characteristics and interests ....................................................................44
C. Mission statements of biodiversity support organizations ...................................................................45
D. Organizations that responded to the Questionnaire
Executive Summary
A Multi-dimensional Research Program for Global Biodiversity
As the year 2000 approached, commentators predicted that the 20th century of physics would be
followed by a “Century of Biology”. These commentators may have been basing their prediction on the
promise of breakthroughs in genomics, personal medicine, or nano-biotechnology, but threats to global
biodiversity and the possibility of ecosystem collapse could also make biology the critical scientific
frontier. Global climate change, population growth, and changing patterns of land use are all driving
changes in biodiversity and ecosystem function, but the reverse is also true. Human activities are having
significant impacts on the living world, and we are beginning to see the impacts that changes in
biodiversity will have on society through the 21st century.
“Biodiversity” is ordinarily thought of as species diversity. How many species inhabit the Earth? Where
do they live, what do they do, how do they interact with each other as populations, communities and
ecosystems, and how is human society affecting these things? At the same time, science policy is
focusing on the ‘ecosystem services’ that are critical to society – including clean water, air, secure food
supplies, coastal stability. One great challenge for this century is the need for social and economic
policy decisions that are based on solid knowledge of the relationship between biodiversity and
ecosystem functions. Without this knowledge, policy-makers can generate unintended consequences
that will undermine human well-being and efforts toward a future of sustainable economic
development.
The National Council for Science and the Environment’s (NCSE) 9th National Conference on Science,
Policy and the Environment in December 2008 explored the challenges of Biodiversity in a Rapidly
Changing World. As a follow up, NCSE a convened a two-day workshop, “Enabling Biodiversity Research:
the Roles of Information and Support Networks” in December 2009 at the National Academy of Sciences
in Washington, DC. The workshop was held in the context of “Dimensions of Biodiversity”, a 10-year
research initiative being developed by the US National Science Foundation. The invited participants
represented national and international biodiversity research initiatives, most of which focus on building
the information and reference collection infrastructures that are critical for biodiversity research.
The Status of Biodiversity Research
Participants in the workshop agreed that taxonomy and the species level diversity are the traditional
core of biodiversity research but that any definition of ‘biodiversity’ must extend much farther.
Diversity is universal and evolution operates on the levels of genes, developmental pathways,
physiology, populations, communities and ecosystems. National and international research
communities have grown and thrived to focus on each of these levels of biodiversity. For each one,
basic and applied research and the required research infrastructure have grown interactively, including:
• Genetic – GenBank, EMBL, DDBJ, Barcode of Life

• Species level – Census of Marine Life, TEAM, other ATBIs, Catalogue of Life/ITIS, Global
Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF), biodiversity informatics
• Applied research – Consultative Group for International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)
• Ecosystems –Long Term Ecological Research ( LTER) network, National Ecological Observatory
Network (NEON), LifeWatch, Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observatory Network
(GEO BON).
A Ten-year Vision for Biodiversity Research
The Century of Biology will challenge research communities and the research infrastructures they have
built to grow across the traditional boundaries that have separated them. Participants in the workshop
agreed that a new generation of ‘multi-dimensional’ research is needed to understand the feedbacks
and feed-forwards that link genes, gene expression, development, physiology, population and
community ecology, speciation, ecosystem functioning, and other dimensions of biodiversity.
Research infrastructures, especially reference collections and databases, will need to expand their
missions and programs of work. In addition to providing access to comprehensive resources on one
dimension of biodiversity, infrastructures will need to develop ways for researchers to navigate from the
information sources they usually use into other dimensions, to support a new generation of research.
The ‘interoperability challenge’ is already being addressed through broad initiatives such as e-Biosphere,
NEON/LifeWatch, and the Barcode of Life.
Information technology will be a critical component in enabling a new generation of multi-dimensional

research on biodiversity. IT has vastly increased access to information within a research community, but
much more will be required for multi-dimensional research.
• How will researchers link and retrieve information that reside in different databases and were
built using different data standards?
• After we have retrieved and assembled these multi-dimensional data, how will researchers work
with them?
Over the coming decade, the newly defined biodiversity research community will need to develop new
research laboratories and environments that will enable:
• International and interdisciplinary collaboration in virtual laboratories created on the Web;

• Digitization and annotation of new families of information, ranging across satellite imagery,
ground-based monitoring, museum collections, social science surveys, and gene sequences;
• New approaches to knowledge representation in biology that render data not only
interoperable and retrievable, but computable; and
• In-depth partnerships with computer scientists and informaticians devoted to creating
computational approaches to a vastly expanded body of biodiversity data.
Introduction[TSK1]
Biodiversity in a Rapidly Changing World [TSK2]

As we implement the International Year of Biodiversity (2010), the global biodiversity situation is
perilous. Unprecedented losses are continuing to accelerate on all scales and in all aspects of
biodiversity. Global trends of population growth, climatic disruption and unsustainable economic
activity are driving major losses of irretrievable knowledge and resources.
The International Year of Biodiversity is the opportunity for what may be the
world’s last chance to answer the fundamental questions about biodiversity
and to provide information relevant to conservation that may still allow a
reversal in the potentially catastrophic forces and trends that are destroying
life’s support system.
Losses of biodiversity act synergistically with climate change. Globally, some 20% of carbon dioxide
emissions are due to deforestation - particularly of tropical forests - the richest and most diverse
terrestrial ecosystem. Ocean acidification is reducing the buffering capacity of the world’s largest source
of carbon storage, disturbing the biological processes that drive the carbon cycle, damaging the bases of
food webs, and leading to the endangerment of the biologically rich coral reef ecosystems.
What we don’t know is hurting us. Large voids in knowledge are hampering our ability to use
biodiversity sustainably and to conserve life’s richness for the long term. Scientists still know very little
about most of the organisms that co-inhabit this planet. We do not know whether there are 10s of
millions or hundreds of millions of species. The vast majority of the Earth’s species of plants, animals
and microorganisms still do not have scientific names, nor do we know their natural history, functional
roles, or the genetic and biochemical resources they contain. Because it is these organisms that give us a
livable planet—by producing oxygen, degrading wastes, cleaning our air and water, providing us with
food, building materials and pharmaceuticals, and a whole host of other ecosystem services—we
desperately need to determine the dimensions of the unknown biodiversity that surrounds us.
Also alarming is the loss of certain types of scientific capacity – particularly in systematics. These issues
were made clear in US reports by the National Science Board (NSB) (1989), the President’s Committee of
Advisers on Science and Technology - Teaming with Life report (1998), and the proposed action plan by
Raven and Wilson (1992). <we need to add some European and other references>
However, there is also a tremendous flowering of new techniques for biodiversity observation, research,
data storage, and analysis. Advances in molecular biology, genetics, cyberinfrastructure, computational
biology and other fields have enabled biodiversity studies that were never previously possible. The
scientific community can now begin a systematic re-assessment of the scientific capacity for biodiversity
research, the challenges and opportunities posed by changes in biodiversity, biodiversity science and
biodiversity support services. There are likewise new opportunities to rapidly characterize biodiversity,
and advances in technology, collaboration, funding, permitting, etc. may allow the community to scale
up its knowledge quickly.
Previous efforts to identify the resource needs and the activities that fill those needs have only
addressed portions of the biodiversity community. There have been no attempts to examine the needs
of the biodiversity research community as a whole, or to focus on the integrative efforts that will be
needed to ascertain the dimensions of what scientists have yet to learn about biodiversity. Some of
these previous and ongoing activities include:
• Systematics Agenda 2000 (1994) examined the needs of the taxonomic community.
• The US National Science and Technology Council report on Scientific Collections:
Mission-Critical Infrastructure for Federal Science Agencies (2009) focused on
collections maintained by US federal agencies.
• The OECD’s Global Science Forum has compiled reports on Biological Resource Centres:
Underpinning the Future of Life sciences and Biotechnology (2001) and Policy Issues
Related to Scientific Research Collections (2008).
• e-Biosphere 09 (http://www.e-biosphere09.org/) was devoted to developing
interoperable cyberinfrastructure for biodiversity.
• The Global Biodiversity Assessment (1995) attempted to examine biodiversity in all its
aspects and in an international context, but is now badly out of date.
• The National Academy has addressed elements of these questions in a number of
reports, including NEON: Addressing the Nation’s Environmental Challenges (2003), A
Biological Survey for the Nation (1994), and Earth Science and Applications from Space:
National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond (2007) with a chapter on “Land-
Use Change, Ecosystem Dynamics, and Biodiversity."
• The 2010 Biodiversity Indicators Partnership of over 40 international organizations
(www.twentyten.net) is developing a set of 22 biodiversity indicators in anticipation of
the Convention on Biological Diversity meeting in Nagoya. The initiative is sponsored by
the UNEP World Conservation Monitoring Centre (WCMC).
• Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI) conducted a United States Botanical
Capacity Assessment (http://www.bgci.org/usa/bcap) in 2009.
• A British effort to identify the Top 100 Questions of Conservation Biology is currently
being replicated in Canada and the US (Sutherland et al. 2006, Fleishman et al,
BioScience, in press).
A large and vibrant international community of nongovernmental organizations supports biodiversity

research by providing logistics, informatics, funding, and integrative services for biodiversity research.
The US National Science Foundation (NSF), seeking to understand the extent and functions of
biodiversity, have initiated plans for a decade-long campaign to characterize the key but understudied
dimensions of biodiversity. “The Dimensions of Biodiversity initiative seeks to characterize biodiversity
on Earth by using integrative, innovative approaches to fill rapidly the most substantial gaps in our
understanding of the diversity of life on Earth. This campaign will take a broad view of biodiversity, and
in its initial phase will focus on the integration of genetic, taxonomic and functional dimensions of
biodiversity… By 2020, the Dimensions of Biodiversity campaign is expected to have transformed how
we describe and understand the scope and role of life on Earth. The campaign promotes novel,
integrated approaches to identify and understand the evolutionary and ecological significance of the
dimensions of biodiversity amidst the changing environment of the present day and geological past”
(NSF 2010 – Program Solicitation 10-548).
Success of this initiative depends in large measure on coordination and support from a diverse
community of organizations and institutions that maintain biodiversity databases and collections,
develop new informatics tools and other cyberinfrastructure, and provide logistical support and funding
for biodiversity researchers.
This document presents the basis for a global initiative to understand the fundamentals of biodiversity
through cooperation among the institutions that enable research by providing research facilities,
taxonomic and database resources, and supporting research.
It is based on a workshop funded by the NSF held at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington,
DC in December 2009. The major goal of the proposed workshop was to bring together representatives
from this community to assess the institutional capacity for research support and develop approaches
and collaborations for building increased capacity. Specific workshop activities included:
• Develop a compendium of the kinds of enabling support currently being provided;

• Identify significant gaps in this support;
• Propose mechanisms to fill those gaps; and
• Develop strategies for strengthening communication and cooperation among the
elements of the community.
Section I. The Biodiversity Research Support Community: capacity, activities,

and needs.
A. Current Situation: Characterization of the Community
Non-governmental organizations and institutions provide a large proportion of the

infrastructure, coordination and support that serves as the foundation for
biodiversity research. These institutions range from individual museums, botanical
gardens, zoos, and other organizations to national and multi-national networks
established to enable greater understanding of biological diversity. They enable
research by providing logistics, informatics, funding, and integrative services. They
address the full range of biodiversity components and questions from molecules to
ecosystems, and include genetic, taxonomic and functional elements of biodiversity.
There are approximately 65 leading institutions, organizations and networks, almost entirely
based in Europe and the United States. Each was invited to participate in the workshop and in
the pre-workshop questionnaire. More than 65% participated directly in the workshop or
indirectly by responding to the survey. Thus, this report represents the vast majority of the
leadership of the international biodiversity support community.
Although this community includes many organizations, partnerships, and dedicated individuals, it lacks
unity and coherence as an international community. In general, the European organizations are much
better networked and coordinated than their American counterparts. There is an enormous and serious
lack of organizations and individual capacity in the developing nations, where most of the world’s
biodiversity resides.
The following characterizes the organizations based on self-responses to a series of survey questions. A
list of respondents can be found in Appendix D .
1. Survey Results
How much of the institutional budget is directed towards biodiversity?
More than half – 18 of 31 organizations responding to the question devote 100% of their budget to
biodiversity (Figure 1).
20
18
16
14
12
10
0
N/A Spend Spend Spend Spend Spend Spend Spend Spend Spend
100% 80% 50% 35% 13% 10% 2% 1% 0%
6
Who is the primary funding source?
Government (25 organizations) and foundations (20 organizations) are the primary funders for more
than half of the organizations (Figure 2). Commerce was not a primary funding source for any of these
groups.
Primary Funding Sources

7
30
25
20
15
10
Allowed to select up to three
How important is the US National Science Foundation as a funder for these organizations?
Of 13 organizations that reported to receive funds from the US National Science Foundation
(NSF), 4 organizations receive more than 65% of their funds from NSF, with the remainder
receiving 33% or less (Figure 3). Many of the participating organizations were not based in
the US and thus are not eligible for NSF funding.
What is the geographic focus of the organization?
More than half (60%) have a global focus, with18% having a continental focus, 12% nationally focused
and 8% transnational.
What types of organizational activities are undertaken?
A wide range of activities are carried out. More than 75% provide biodiversity data and half undertake
educational activities. None of the respondents provide commercial products (Fig 4)
What types of information are provided?
Some 75% of the organizations provide biological information about species – especially species
occurrence data. Nearly half provide ecological data, a variety of information tools, and other types of
information (Figure 5).
Information Provided by Organization

11
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Allowed to select all that apply

What taxonomic groups are addressed?
Although nearly half of the community (17 organizations) includes information on all taxonomic groups,
only 4 organizations emphasize all taxonomic groups. The rest are focused on one or more taxonomic
groups; these specialized groups cover essentially all taxa from microorganisms to vertebrate classes.
What types of ecological data are provided?
More than 20 types of ecological data are provided by organizations including:
• Biogeographic Distribution
• Climate Data
• Demographic Data
• Ecological Indicators
• Ecological Thematic Layers
• Ecosystem Type
• Elevation Model (digital)
• Environmental Preferences
• Evolutionary Relationships
• International Ecological Classification Standard
• Life History
• Marine Environmental Parameters
• Physiochemical Characteristics
• Population Distribution and Dynamics
• Remotely Sensed Environmental Parameters
• Soil Map (digital)
• Trophic Ecology
How are data used for management?
Almost all data providers make information available for management of a variety of types. Data from
more than 75% of the sources were used with respect to ecosystem services, with data from half or
fewer used for any other single type of natural resource management. Less than 10% provided data
relevant to agriculture (Fig 6).
Biodiversity/Ecosystem Resource Management

Data Types Provided
14
35
30
25
20
15
10
What types of habitat are covered?
The largest coverage was for marine (80%) and coastal (67%) with around half of organizations including
information on a variety of terrestrial systems (Fig 7).
Habitat Types Covered

15
35
30
25
20
15
10

What types of genetic data are provided?
Genetic data provided included sequences (14 organizations), bar codes (13), annotation (6) and “other”
(13). Twelve organizations do not provide genetic data.
What types of digital library resources are provided?
Secondary services (e.g. indexing and abstracting) are provided by 15 groups. Twelve provide access to
the original literature or other types of digital library resources. Six provide policy and legal documents
and another six groups do not provide digital library resources.
What types of web accessible data and information are provided?
More than half the organizations provide online access to specimen or observational data or document
standards and protocols or names catalogs. Controlled terminology is provided by 25% of the groups
and other web accessible data are provided by 25% (10 groups). Only two groups do not provide web
accessible data. A wide variety of web applications and tools are provided, with the vast majority being
available through open sources (fig 8).
Web Services – Applications/Tools

19
25 Apps/Tools
20 Open source
15
10
Is biodiversity information infrastructure provided?

64% of the organizations develop or provide standards, protocols, support, software, or other types of
information infrastructure; whereas 28% do not (8% did not answer). 71% develop or provide data or
metadata standards and protocols; 18% do not and 11% did not respond.
Visualization tools are provided by 19 organizations, analytical tools by 18 and modeling by 9 groups.
Other informatics tools are provided by 11 groups. 25 groups provide portals or websites with
information from multiple sites whereas 14 only provide their own information.
Who are the target users?
Almost all organizations (35) target the scientific community, with students (31), educators (30), the
science-attentive public and policymakers (each 26), information intermediaries and natural resource
managers (24 each), the general public (15) and other users (5) as lesser audiences.
Are products and services available without charge?
All responders had some form of free products and services with eight having additional restrictions.
What kinds of logistical support are provided?
67% of the organizations provide some logistical support; while 31% do not. The support includes:
• Support
o Financial
o Policy
o Education through publications
o Lab space
o Vehicles
• Technology
o Tools
o Infrastructure
o Standards
• Training
• Networking and Collaboration
Do organizations assist with research permitting?

Only 13% of the organizations help with permitting issues although other groups have member groups
that are involved in permitting but do not participate themselves. Some organizations have blanket
permits from particular countries related to threatened or protected species.
2. Perspectives from the Workshop
a. Who are the members and key user constituencies of the groups and networks represented at the
meeting?
• Field station “community”: 200-300 field stations in North and South America
• Ecological research community
• Natural resource management community
• Monographic taxonomic experts, delivering data through global standard databases. 515 sectors
via 71 providers.
• 95 research institutes and universities doing research on marine biodiversity—taxonomy,
species distributions, functional roles, physiology, socio-economic aspects of biodiversity.
• Metagenomics (at community level) and genomics (at species level) researchers, and a broad
range of consumers of these data.
• Catalog of Life, 10 major users: 8-10 data portals like the Global Biodiversity Information Facility
(GBIF), 40 national portals, 40,000 individual users of the site per year, first commercial users.
• 1000 governmental and non-governmental members of The World Conservation Union (IUCN).
• Bioinformatics, computer cyberinfrastructure, metadata developers (processors and
ontologists), Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) sites and other organizations organizing data
in standardized formats connected through the Committee on Data for Science and Technology
(CODATA)
• 4 million citizen scientists (through Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology), bird observation data (70
million records)
• Suite of formal and informal science education projects in biodiversity, molecular biology and
ecological research: 40,000-50,000 people/year.
• Frozen zoo includes 180 institutions, mostly zoological parks in the US, but also 20 other
countries, and some species from wild populations. Contains 8700 cell cultures from over 800
vertebrate taxa. The purpose is conservation research, but resources are used by hundreds of
investigators, especially evolutionary biologists and biomedical scientists. A major source of DNA
for research. Contributors are from Association of Zoo and Aquariums (AZA).
• AZA: 221 institutions, primarily in US, responsible to 175 million zoo visitors per year.
• Scientific community ((15 international institutions in Consultative Group on International
Agricultural Research (CGIAR), each having their own network, thousands of people in total))
working on research for food and agriculture for development. Representing 11 gene banks,
agronomic associations, agricultural institutions, plant breeders. Focus on conservation and use
of biodiversity for crops. 470,000 samples are exchanged among members annually. 650,000
accessions. Also manage databases of observation data and taxonomic data for identification.
Working on developing data about crop threats. Contribute to GBIF. Cover 1500 crop species.
• Developing country scientists (300-400)
• InterAcademies Panel (IAP): a network of 100 national science academies.
• Network of data centers focused on species and ecosystem status and mapping: 15 universities,
10 NGOs, 70 state, federal and tribal government agencies. 4 million data requests per year,
serving conservation planners, threatened and endangered (T&E) species, regulatory
compliance, at-risk species and ecosystem management, and researchers on at-risk species and
ecosystems.
• Encyclopedia of Life (EOL): systematists and taxonomists, general lay community (public, citizen
science), biologists, general, applied users (conservation, management and planning)
• Other users: industrial, bioenergy, waste management, utilities, certification efforts for buildings
(LEED), forestry and biomass production, and sustainable development.
• 120 marine labs; 10,000 scientists; remote places.
• National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON) producing 700 data products.
• Morphbank – place for morphologists to put their images, metadata catalog, specimen
information, etc.
• Plant Conservation International – plant search database, global tree specialist group of IUCN;
red list assessment for trees; botanical capacity assessment project funded by National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation.
• Data Mining for Global Trends in Mountain Biodiversity – a book From Global Mountain
Biodiversity Assessment
• Encyclopedia of the Earth (maintained by NCSE), peer reviewed online hyperlinked encyclopedia
aimed primarily at undergraduate students.
• Others.
b. How do the organizations set priorities and make decisions around biodiversity research? How does
the biodiversity network community interact with the users of biodiversity data in defining an
agenda?
i. Overall challenges:
Balance between top down and bottom up –
What is the appropriate balance between top down global priority setting exercises based on
assessments such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment and bottom up approaches that begin with
decisions of individual scientists and institutions? Although top down approaches can stimulate
investments and new research, often the impetus for global assessments or international policy
mechanisms comes from the bottom up first. Without dedicated resources, the top down approach has
limited effectiveness.
There are 2 investment marketplaces:

– academic marketplace (provider- driven)
- applications (e.g. land use and management, conservation) (user driven)
- providers and users are different, much larger leverage
The connection between these 2 marketplaces is not very strong currently. The goals and motivations
of academic community (scientific advancement) often differ from those of the user community.
Additionally there are cultural, communication and funding gaps. Mechanisms to connect researchers
and users are relatively few. Funding sources are not systematically aligned to the needs of either
community. Recognition of a matrix of approaches to science, such as Pasteur’s quadrant (use-inspired
basic research) (Stokes 1997) may help to clarify the situation.
In determining prioritization, funders and researchers should seek to maximize return on investment
(maximize knowledge gained per investment), by enabling re-use of data being digitized, creating
coordinated networks and other means of collaboration.
They also need to consider the cost of not doing something, i.e., what is the cost of ignorance?
ii. Specific approaches of organizations include:
• America n Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA) prioritizes its work through taxonomic advisory
groups that identify species needing attention.
• Catalog of Life user group works with identified user community.
• CAMERA has a science advisory board made up of “super-users”
• CGIAR has an inter-center working group on genetic resources that helps to set priorities. Also
led by “challenge programs” which link the centers to international initiatives (e.g., genomic
challenge and climate change challenge program). The Global Crop Conservation Trust is
building an endowment fund for conservation by Annex 1 crops, which is driving priorities for
conservation and research. Treaty for the Protection of Genetic Resources for Agriculture
(TPGRFA) provides the legal framework for collecting, preserving and exchanging crop samples.
• CODATA Taxonomic Data Working Group (TDWG) is typically organized around thematic
working groups made up of scientific, informatics, and database experts.
• Conservation International (CI), IUCN and NatureServe work together to identify taxonomic
groups for which little is known about their status.
• Frozen Zoo has an internal review group. Also has an internal committee that reviews requests
for uses of genetic data.
• Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Functioning (MarBEF) network has a science advisory board
that meets twice a year and gives directives.
• NatureServe has standing councils comprised of it member organizations. Also creates ad hoc
work groups to tackle methodology issues. Also sets priorities through participation in
international standards groups like TDWG.
• Organization of Biological Field Stations (OBFS) does not attempt to set a scientific agenda or
priorities. They just support principal investigator (PI)-driven research of their members.
• Third World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) also does not attempt to set an agenda. They respond
to proposals they receive. Proposals are reviewed by committees that sometimes include
outside researchers.
c. What are the community strengths, assets and needs?
i. STRENGTHS & ASSETS

• Considerable infrastructure, each with its own acronym – a lot of expertise and resources
already in place
• Continuity of organizations and efforts over time (remarkable, given lack of continuity in
funding)
• Ecological/habitat diversity
• Existing, immense network of participants
• Geographical diversity
• International scope Links to national and international policy drivers
• Links to national and international policy makers and influencers
• Taxonomically broad (in many aspects)
• Very broad audience of users, including the public
ii. NEEDS
• More focus on ecosystem function
• Geographic breadth: Need broader representation by developing countries
• Diversity in genomic data, which are over-represented by “culturable” organisms
• Paleontological expertise: mostly focused on extant biodiversity (rather than fossil record)
• Greater involvement with policy makers
• Standardized assessment methods and networks for collecting, disseminating and accessing
biodiversity data
• Standardized methods for sharing and integration of data (ontologies, and other technical
aspects)
• An expanded open-access culture with a protocol to track provenance of data that makes
people more comfortable sharing data, knowing that they will receive credit for their work.
• Expanded human capacity to replace retiring scientists and to expand geographically and
taxonomically.
• Standardized infrastructure for collecting and managing biodiversity data.
• Better tools for traversing between alternative taxonomies.
• Complete the inventory of life forms – and the computational infrastructure to handle it – there
will be an explosion of data as genomics moves forward.
• Complete catalogs of known species.
• Better understanding of how biodiversity contributes to and influences ecosystem function.
• Stronger institutions: weakness is a dependence on “fragile” institutions, which have uncertain
funding streams.
• Financial resources.
d. Issues:
i. DATA ISSUES
• Access to data and specimens
• Analytical tools
• Archiving and storage of data so they can be used in the future scaling of consortium models
internationally
• Attribution
• Bar coding; everything tied to voucher specimen
• Baseline information
• Change detection
• Completeness: How much is enough?
• Data policy – data with metadata need to be made available to the world
• Digitization on a large scale of existing and legacy data
• Emphasizing data quality, usability, replication merit, as we go forward
• Environmental data insufficient
• Geographic data biases
• Incentives for data availability
• Interoperability/data integration: Most data sets weren’t designed to be integrated
• IT infrastructure
• Metadata and standards
• Quality control/fitness for use: too much data locked up by individuals or not in electronic
format
• Scaling and coordination
• Taxonomic improvements
• Tracking use of data once they’re downloaded
• Value added information

ii. COMMUNITY ISSUES
• Community is lacking theory and consistent systems of representation: This will come from
knowledge representation, computer science, not from biodiversity science community
• Educating consumers of taxonomic data
• Human resources
• Information in living collections (botanical gardens, zoos, aquariums) not fully utilized –need to
mobilize the network of botanical gardens;
• Internationalization, access in different languages and international coordination
• Maximizing potential of biodiversity knowledge sharing;
• Mechanisms needed for getting people together and for networking activities
• Reward and evaluation incentives (metrics) at the individual level and the institutional level
• Societal and political challenges
• Workflows become critical
Community components -
Users:
• Need connections to policy decisions, decision-makers
• Need connections to users – what do they want?
• Need clearer outreach/marketing message to promote public understanding
• Need indicators of biodiversity and ecosystem studies
Researchers:
• Diversify coverage to include poorly known groups, microbes in particular
• Fight data entropy
• Create data standards, probably specific to sub-communities
• Need to overcome fractionation, capitalize on good local solutions that can be scaled up
Funders:
• Focus on intrinsic merit over wider impact results in shorter-term grants to create new
databases versus longer-term support; results in fragility of databases, organizations, initiatives; loss of
the benefits of past investments;
• Wider impact” should also include longer-term impact: Need longer-term support for data
archives, collections, infrastructure
• Create incentives to digitize resources, open sharing
• Require and enforce data policies that support openness, sharing; create systems for giving
professional credit for contributions to data.
• Provide access to data on current investments in biodiversity research and infrastructure
iii. OTHER ISSUES
• Lack of theoretical basis for knowledge representation
• Modeling, macroecological questions
• Evolutionary questions
• Biodiversity as a commodity
• Hardware: decide how much to spend on infrastructure vs. data
• What’s transformative in the thinking?
• Return on Investment: where are the low cost opportunities?
iv. SOLUTIONS
• Have solved the problems on very small scales
• Group on Earth Observations (GEO) set up to address many issues raised here
• GBIF set up to address these issues at the primary species information level
• GBIF strategic plan 07/11 is good reference document for this process
• Funders need to consider applications to be as important as fundamental research
• Leveraging – as we go forward in this initiative, other currently funded projects will bear
additional fruit
• Some of the innovation will come from integration

B. Key Issues of Concern
To identify challenges in providing the support for a major campaign to understand dimensions of
biodiversity, we surveyed the community through a series of open-ended questions. The questions and
a summary of responses are below. The complete set of responses is available at
www.NCSEonline.org/biodiversity
1. What are the largest barriers to success in accomplishing your organizational

mission?
• Data integration, sharing and access
o Lack of infrastructure
o Incompatibilities of data
• Willingness to share
o Turf sensitivity
o Individual competition
o Publication first
o Needs for proper attribution
• Lack of human capacity and expertise
o Taxonomists
o Field biologists
o Staff
• Lack of financial resources
o Erratic short-term funding
2. What are the largest unmet needs in providing information and support
related to biodiversity research globally?
Access and sharing of data
Integration of biodiversity data with other data and tools
Biodiversity indicators for general public as well as decision-makers
Use and development of advanced web-technologies and tools
Metadata
3. Is current capacity (including human resources) sufficient to support a major

new research effort on Dimensions of Biodiversity?
Majority of responders said “No”
A few said “yes”
Others weren’t quite sure
If capacity is insufficient, what are the largest unmet needs?

• Assessing the capacity of developing countries
• More people
o Taxonomists
o Biodiversity informaticians
o Curators
• Support
o Policies
o Funding
o Public
4. What are the top major gaps in the support infrastructure for biodiversity
science?
Limited or no access to data, information, specimens, etc.
Need digital conversion
Barriers (e.g. bandwidth, trust)
Need for “Biobanks” or research/data centers
Capacity development, manage collections, data mining, taxonomic research, etc.
Lack of training for:
Biologists in modeling, spatial statistics, etc.
Young researchers
How can these gaps be filled?

Increase bioinformatics and cyberinfrastructure
Data integration
Data digitization
Creation of data centers
Supportive services
Outreach to developing countries
Increase in funding
Build a business model
Approach non-traditional funding
Education
Policy & decision-makers, classroom, informal, media, etc.
5. Scientific Challenges
a. What are the top scientific questions that need to be addressed in order to
characterize the dimensions of biodiversity?
Nearly 100 questions were suggested. These questions can be summarized as follows.
A full list of questions and a more complete summary can be found at <Appendix?
Seven pages total>
• What species exist?

• How many species exist?
• How are species to be defined?

o Taxonomic classification disputes
o Relevant units of biological diversity (macro vs. micro)
• What are the influences of phylogeny and genetics to species diversity/evolution?
o What role does the environment play?
• Where are the species?
o Biogeography
o Range, depth, and elevation
o Landscape, habitat, etc.
• What changes are taking place with biodiversity?
o Threats
o Areas most at-risk
o Loss of ecosystem services
• How can we predict, model, measure, or characterize the ecological processes of
biodiversity in order to:
o Assess impacts of anthropogenic or climatic changes
o Create key mitigation/conservation/management plans
• Human aspect
o Anthropogenic influence/disturbance
o Livestock-agroecosystem interactions
o International cooperation
• What do we already know?
• Technology
o Normalizing information for synthesis and analysis
o Digitization
o User interfaces
o Development of composite indicators
• What is our baseline?
b. What are the top scientific questions that should guide exploration of the
Earth’s unknown dimensions of biodiversity?
• What don’t we know?
o Undiscovered species, critical thresholds, ocean exploration, etc.
• What are the trends and how can we predict the future?
o Impacts of climate change, invasions, adaptation, land-use, etc.
• What are the functions and services of ecosystems?
o How does society depend upon these?
o How do these affect decision-making?

• What are the spatial, temporal, genetic, and phenotypic patterns of diversity?
o How are these defined and scaled?
c. In what fields of biodiversity science will additional funding be most likely to

lead to breakthroughs in understanding of biodiversity?
Informatics
Genomics
Field work
Modeling
Data intensive analysis
Collections
Section II. Key Findings and Recommendations - DS

Section II. Key findings and recommendations
Workshop participants were provided with an overview of NSF’s plans for a ten-year
“Dimensions of Biodiversity” funding initiative and were asked how it would benefit from,
and provide benefits to, the existing global networks that provide infrastructure and
support for biodiversity research. Participants welcomed the initiative and felt qualified to
comment, based on their experience in creating and operating national and international
networks of physical infrastructure, information resources, and systems that support
biodiversity research. Discussion then focused on three central questions that confront this
and any long-term research initiative:
A. What new goals and deliverables for research and research infrastructure should
form the centerpieces of the initiative?
B. What new forms of activity, collaboration, and coordination will be needed from the
community?
C. What actions will be needed from US government agencies and their foreign
counterparts?
The results of those discussions follow.
Ten-year Goals, Objectives and Deliverables
Multi-dimensional integrative research
Research infrastructure and support
Achieving Our Goals -, DS, SO. SA,
Role of biodiversity research community
Role of government agencies, foundations and others
A. Goals and Deliverables of a Ten-year Initiative

NSF is to be congratulated for proposing an initiative that not only focuses on biodiversity,
but does so in a way that overcomes traditional disciplinary boundaries and could generate
results that are particularly ‘fit for use’ by society at a critical time. The term ‘biodiversity’ is
most often equated with species richness, the number and diversity of species of plants,
animals and microbes found alive or as fossils. By terming its initiative ‘Dimensions of
Biodiversity’, NSF has signaled its recognition that 21st Century biodiversity scientists must
conduct research that integrates across the many dimensions of biodiversity, including but
not limited to:
[FOLLOWING LIST CAN BE EXPANDED WITH EXPLANATION, EXAMPLES – KEEPING IT SHORT

FOR NOW]
• Genetic variation and its distribution in time and space
• Variation of phenotypic traits that together constitute biomechanics, physiology, and

ecological role
• Taxonomic variation within and among species
• Diversity of ecological communities within and among landscapes
• Variation within and among ecosystems and their functions
• Diversity of social systems and their interactions with biodiversity
• Historical variation of the different dimensions of biodiversity
The overall research goal of a ten-year initiative, then, would be a clearer understanding of
the multidimensional workings of biodiversity, especially those that are critical to a
sustainable human society on Earth. The complexity inherent to each dimension will be
multiplied enormously as research becomes multidimensional so a significant upgrade in
research capabilities will be essential.
Participants identified the following key elements needed as part of this upgrade:
1. Make biodiversity data accessible and computable.
Some forms of biodiversity data are digital from birth (e.g., nucleotide sequences, remote
sensing images) but most come in analog form:
- Taxonomic names
- Phylogenetic relationships
- Protein structures
- Specimen data and metadata from biological repositories (collections, cultures)

Converting data to digital form, making them web-accessible, and indexing them in ways
that make them navigable and interoperable among dimensions of biodiversity will be an
enormous challenge. For example, lists of taxonomic names would become web-based
taxonomic name services that would resolve ambiguities about the name and would connect
users to literature resources on that species. Phylogenetic trees would become navigable
frameworks for organizing biodiversity data from different dimensions.
2. Integrate modeling and computational science into biodiversity research. The higher
dimensionality of biodiversity data will require new ways of representing and connecting
knowledge. Computer and semantic modeling of this knowledge will enable researchers to
explore concepts, formulate unifying theories, and test predictive models of how
biodiversity behaves across dimensions
3. Make biodiversity data relevant. Observational data on many dimensions of

biodiversity are needed as baselines against which critical, socially-relevant changes can be
measured. Policy-makers and the public will want simple, easy to understand indicators of
the status and health of local and global biodiversity. Creating reliable, meaningful
indicators from complex data and trends will be an important step in connecting
biodiversity research to public policy.
Make biodiversity data understandable. Policy-makers and the public need simple, easy-to-understand
indicators of the status and health of local and global biodiversity. Creating concise, understandable,
reliable and meaningful indicators from complex data and trends will be an important step in connecting
biodiversity research to the general public and public policy. To create and maintain these indicators,
data on the many dimensions of biodiversity will be needed. In addition, broad consensus will be
required regarding how they are formulated and communicated.
These upgraded research capabilities, taken together, would create a global, virtual
laboratory for multi-dimensional research. This laboratory would be more than a collection
of online tools and databases. It would provide the biodiversity research community with
generalized analytical capabilities and the complex workflows needed to handle
heterogeneous data and concepts. Equipped in this way, we can hope to determine:
• How many species are there on Earth, where do they live, and how do they function
and interact?
• How do ecosystems work based on the species they contain and how they interact
with each other and the environment?
• What are the triggers and predictive indicators to ecosystem collapse?
• How will global biodiversity on different levels respond to:
o climate change?
o changing land use?
o urbanization?
o population growth?
B. Community Actions Needed
Leaders in biodiversity research all agree that “business as usual is not an option” if the
ambitious goals described above are to be obtained. The next-generation tools, processed
and policies envisioned here will have an impact only if practitioners also change both their
work products and their mode of working.
The different dimensions of biodiversity have been pursued, for the most part, by different
research communities working independently of each other. Many projects have developed
into globally integrated large-scale initiatives that share major research infrastructure. The
Human Genome Project is the best known example but there are many others and they are
all to be commended for scaling up, accelerating, and standardizing their activities in
significant ways. The rapidly growing field of Biodiversity Informatics is integrating diverse
components of previously ‘stove-piped’ research into globally comprehensive knowledge
resources. This e-Biosphere initiative is building operational connections among projects
such as:
• The Census of Marine Life is integrating biodiversity inventories across the ocean’s
realms from shallow water and coral reefs to the deep sea and the poles;
• The Consortium for the Barcode of Life is promoting the use of short standardized
gene sequences as cost-effective tools for species identification. The DNA barcode database
has already grown to 800,000 records representing almost 100,000 species and the
International Barcode of Life Project aims to barcode 5 million specimens from 500,000
species in five years.
• The Catalog of Life and the Global Names Architecture are constructing a name-based
framework of taxonomic diversity around which knowledge of species can be constructed;
• The Assembling the Tree of Life Project is constructing the phylogenetic framework
through which the evolution of characters, character states, and major lineages can be
studied;
• The Encyclopedia of Life and Biodiversity Heritage Library are creating web pages for
every known species with linkages to the entire corpus of biological literature not
constrained by copyrights;
• The National Ecological Observation Network (NEON) in the US and LifeWatch in

Europe are developing as integrated monitoring systems in nature that rely on automated
sensors, analytical instrumentation, geographic information systems, and long-term data
archiving to study complex ecosystem and community processes;
• The Plant Genome Research Program began with intense genomic and developmental
study Arabidopsis and then expanded rapidly to include many species critical to the human
food supply.
These projects share the characteristics that will be critical for multi-dimensional research
in biodiversity:
• Large scale and long duration;
• Genuine collaboration and routine mobility among participating countries;
• Reliance on shared information platforms;
• Commitment to early and open sharing of data while providing attribution to

contributors.
The projects described above demonstrate the rapid changes underway in biodiversity
reach and they set the stage for a period of truly new and innovative multi-dimensional
research. What additional changes will be required of the research community in order to
reach the goals described above:
1. Study the nature and relationships among data types in different dimensions of
biodiversity. Ontologies will be need for knowledge on different dimensions before we can
design interoperable systems of data management, analysis, modeling or visualization;
2. Adopt, implement, and rely on data standards. Ontologies will clarify the use of data
on different dimensions and allow us to create data standards that will render them
interoperable. Research communities will need discipline in using standards to maintain
the integrity of relationships among different data types;
3. Controlled perturbation experiments will be needed as an adjunct to field-based

monitoring and observational studies. Seeing how systems respond to perturbations will be
crucial tests of our understanding of how multi-dimensional processes actually work;
4. New systems will be needed to attribute credit for contributions to complex data
systems and assessing the values of the contributions of an individual. As multi-dimensional
research becomes more complex and team-based, there is a danger of undermining
incentives for individuals to contribute their data without attribution. The community will
need a new system for valuating data contributions in ways similar to the current system of
article-based citation and Impact Factors.
5. Establish and maintain closer and more sustained linkages with students, young
researchers, policymakers and the general public. Outreach to non-researchers must grow
to be a stable, well-supported part of the professional workforce in biodiversity research.
Linkage to policymakers will be especially critical as new science-based goals for
conservation of biodiversity and ecosystem services are developed under the Convention on
Biological Diversity. Ecological niche modeling and the use of geographic information
systems are a leading example of tools that are connecting research to policy and the
community needs to expand cross-sector connections such as these.
6. End the “Biorepository Irony”. The greatest concentrations of living biodiversity are
in places other than the greatest repositories of biological specimens, creating the
‘biorepository irony’. Great museums in industrialized countries are filled with specimens
from developing countries, in which there are far fewer and smaller biorepositories, or none
at all. The next generation of multi-dimensional biodiversity research will need to end this
irony by creating open web access to images and data from ex situ collections and
accelerating the growth of new repositories in countries with high biodiversity. These new
repositories will include frozen tissues and DNA and will become part of a seamless global
data network.
C. Government Actions Needed
There are many examples of the innovative, forward-looking, flexible government actions
that will be needed to achieve the goals described above. These all involve partnerships that
cross traditional boundaries.
1. Interagency partnerships. Biodiversity research is a topic shared across many US

government agencies and the goals described above will serve their missions in diverse
ways. There is therefore mutual benefit to be realized from interagency collaboration in a
Dimensions of Biodiversity initiative. For example, there are already Interagency Working
Groups on Scientific Collections and Digital Data and their initial reports have recommended
developments of standards and common policies across agencies. Interagency research
programs are not common but there are a few highly successful examples such as the Plant
Genome Research Project (NSF-USDA-NIH-DOE). Future collaborative funding programs
could provide support for:
• Biomaterials banking,
• Public understanding of biodiversity,
• Simplifying permitting and access to study material for non-commercial research,

and
• Education of the next generation of biodiversity researchers
2. Inter-sectoral partnerships. Government agencies share an interest in biodiversity

and biodiversity research with non-profit organizations and the private sector. NSF has
developed a partnership with the Gates Foundation for a research program relevant to food
security (the BREAD Program) and this approach could be expanded to NGO research
programs and industrial research.
3. International partnerships.
Global research projects require both cooperation among participants and funding, often
from different national funding sources. Most funding bodies have restrictions on
international use of funds. The difficulty of arranging financial support for a large project
increases non-linearly with the number of funding sources and the duration of the project.
Short-term international funding of bilateral planning workshops is easier to obtain than
longer-term support for a multilateral project. Inter-institutional funding can be difficult to
arrange but it is generally easier than obtaining support from inter-governmental
agreements such as the Global Environmental Facility.
National government agencies that support biodiversity research and depend on its
research projects are critical partners. Having flexible, forward-looking policies and
practices toward interlocking support of multinational projects will make it possible to
attain the goals described above.
Organizations like DIVERSITAS, IIASA, and OECD’s Global Science Forum can act as neutral
sites and incubators that facilitate the planning of international projects, development of
partnerships, and identification of potential funding sources. They also act as a reservoir of
experience in launching complex international projects and models for doing so.
4. Modes of implementation.
A sustained multi-dimensional initiative on biodiversity research would be a wholly new

component in the research landscape. Participants in the workshop urge government
agencies to create inter-sectoral funding programs and a more flexible approach to
international co-funding. Doing so will not only generate much greater impact than the
traditional mode of funding; it will leverage investments by all partners. Many mission
agencies (e.g., USDA, NOAA, Interior) depend on basic biodiversity research. Workshop
participants agreed that co-funding by these agencies and NSF would be fair and mutually
beneficial.
In addition to large research projects, international coordination networks (similar to NSF’s

Research Coordination Networks (RCNs)) will get the initiative off to a faster and more
successful start. After a period of planning, the international community will meet higher
levels of support for centers of research and education devoted to multi-dimensional
biodiversity research. The NSF-funded National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), a
federally-funded R&D Center, is a model to consider. NCAR has been pivotal in generating
and synthesizing observational research, theoretical modeling, partnerships between
domain specialists and computer and information scientists, as well as international
collaboration.
Side bars and text boxes – – to be added; workshop participants please contribute
A. Examples of current international networks – invite all to contribute with specificity - MC

a. GEO BON MGC – Woody T
b. Census of Marine Life Ed VB, Wes T
c. CGIAR – Adriana
d. TEAM Network - a pan-tropical international, multi-institution network that provides a
community biodiversity information resource – SA
e. others??
B. Case studies of biodiversity benefits and the importance of biodiversity science
a. Examples from reports like Teaming With Life
b. Examples from NatureServe
c. Others? BIONET – where taxonomy has made a diff
d. Focus on new science – e.g. microbial and interoperability
e. others??
SECTION III. REFERENCES (not complete)
Committee on the National Ecological Observatory Network, Board on Life Sciences, Division on
Earth and Life Studies, National Research Council. 2003. NEON: Addressing the Nation's
Environmental Challenges. The National Academies Press.
Committee on Earth Science and Applications from Space, Space Studies Board, Division on
Engineering and Physical Sciences, National Research Council. 2007. Earth Science and
Applications from Space: National Imperatives for the Next Decade and Beyond. The
National Academies Press.
Committee on the Formation of the National Biological Survey and Commission on the
Formation of the National Biological Survey, National Research Council. A Biological
Survey for the Nation. 1993. National Academy Press.
Global Biodiversity Assessment. 1995. United Nations Environment Programme and Cambridge
University Press.
Killleffer, T. 2009. Results of Pre-Workshop Questionnaire for Enabling Biodiversity Research:

The Roles of Information and Support Networks, November 30, 2009, Information International
Associates, Oak Ridge, TN
National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Science, Interagency Working Group
on Scientific Collections. 2009. Scientific Collections: Mission-Critical Infrastructure of
Federal Science Agencies. Office of Science and Technology Policy, Washington, DC.
(http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/NSTC%20Reports/Revision_1-22_09_CL.pdf)
National Science Board (NSB). 1989. Loss of Biological Diversity: A Global Crisis Requiring
International Solutions. Report NSB-89-171. Washington: D.C.: National Science
Foundation.
National Science Foundation, Directorate for Biological Sciences, Directorate for Geosciences.
2010. Dimensions of Biodiversity. PROGRAM SOLICITATION 10-548.
OECD. 2001. Biological Resource Centres: underpinning the future of life sciences and
biotechnology. (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/55/48/2487422.pdf)
OECD Global Science Forum. 2008. Second Activity on Policy Issues Related to Scientific
Research Collections. Washington DC.
(http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/7/58/42237442.pdf)
President’s Committee of Advisers on Science and Technology (PCAST). 1998. Teaming with life:
investing in science to understand and use America’s living capital. Office of Science and
Technology Policy, Washington, DC. (http://www.ostp.gov/cs/biodiversity_cover)
Raven, P. H., and E. O. Wilson. 1992. A fifty-year plan for biodiversity surveys. Science 258:
1099-1100.
Stokes, D.E. 1997. Pasteur's Quadrant: Basic Science and Technological Innovation. Brookings
Institution Press, Washington, DC 196 pp.
Sutherland, W.J., et al. 2006. The identification of one hundred ecological questions of high
policy relevance in the UK. Journal of Applied Ecology 43:617–627.
Sutherland, W.J., et al. In press. One hundred questions of importance to the conservation of
global biological diversity. Conservation Biology.
Systematics Agenda 2000. 1994. Charting the biosphere: A global initiative to discover, describe
and classify the world's species. Technical report. American Society of Plant Taxonomy,
Society of Systematic Biologists, and the Willi Hennig Society, New York.
Appendices
A. Participants at workshop
B. Compendium of community characteristics and interests – Terri’s draft -
C. Mission statements of biodiversity support organizations
D. Organizational respondents to questionnaire
A. Participants at workshop
Sandy Andelman dchurch@conservation.org

Vice President & Executive Director
Tropical Ecology Assessment & Monitoring Network Margaret Goud Collins
(TEAM) Program Officer
s.andelman@conservation.org US National Academy of Sciences – US National
Committee for DIVERSITAS
Elizabeth Arnaud mcollins@nas.edu
Biodiversity Informatics Coordinator
Consultative Group on International Agricultural
Research (CGIAR)
e.arnaud@cgiar.org John Dickie
Head of Information Section
Frank Bisby Millennium Seedbank (Kew)
Co-Chair j.dickie@kew.org
Catalogue of Life
f.a.bisby@reading.ac.uk Dan Distel
Executive Director
David Blockstein Ocean Genome Legacy
Senior Scientist distel@oglf.org
National Council for Science and the Environment
david@ncseonline.org Mark Doyle
AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellow
William Y. Brown National Science Foundation
President mdoyle@nsf.gov
Natural Science Collections Alliance (NSCA)
wbrown@ansp.org James L. Edwards
Executive Director
Sara Chun Encyclopedia of Life
AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellow edwardsjl@si.edu
National Science Foundation
schun@nsf.gov Penny Firth
Acting Director, Division of Environmental Biology
Don Church National Science Foundation
Senior Vice President, Science and Knowledge pfirth@nsf.gov
Conservation International
Heidi Fuchs Yde de Jong

Program Coordinator Coordinator
National Council for Science and the Environment Pan-European Species-directory Infrastructure (PESI)
hfuchs@ncseonline.org yjong@uva.nl
Thomas Garnett
Director Matt Kane
Biodiversity Heritage Library Program Director, Division of Environmental Biology
garnettt@si.edu National Science Foundation
mkane@nsf.gov
George Gilchrist
Program Director, Division of Environmental Biology Steve Kelling
National Science Foundation Co-Chair of Biodiversity: Observation and Specimen
ggilchri@nsf.gov Records
International Council of Science (ICSU) Committee on
Shelly Grow Data for Science and Technology (CODATA)
Conservation Biologist stk2@cornell.edu
Association of Zoos and Aquariums
sgrow@aza.org Terri Killeffer
Biodiversity Informatics Specialist
Information International Associates, Inc.
James Hanken tkilleffer@iiaweb.com
Chair, Steering Committee
Encyclopedia of Life Nicholas King
hanken@oeb.harvard.edu Executive Secretary/Director
Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF)
Michael Hoffman nking@gbif.org
Manager, IUCN/SSC - CI/CABS Biodiversity
Assessment Unit Mary Klein
International Union for the Conservation of Nature President & CEO
(IUCN) NatureServe
mike.hoffmann@iucn.org mary_klein@natureserve.org
Adrianna Ianora Meredith Lane

Naples Zoological Station National Biological Information Infrastructure
Marine Biodiversity and Ecosystem Function U.S. Geological Survey
(MARBEF) mlane@usgs.gov
Ianora@szn.it
Elizabeth Losos
Richard Inouye President and CEO
Program Director, Division of Environmental Biology Organization for Tropical Studies (OTS)
National Science Foundation elosos@duke.edu
rinouye@nsf.gov
Mary Maxon
Mark Jacobs Initiative Lead for Marine Microbiology Initiative
Project Consultant Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
LifeWatch mmaxon@ostp.eop.gov
m.jacobs@uva.nl
Peter McGrath
Programme Assistant cprince@ncseonline.org

Third World Academy of Sciences (TWAS)
mcgrath@twas.org Thomas Parker Redick
President-Elect
Norman Morrison Council on Agricultural Science and Technology
Board Member (CAST)
Genomic Standards Consortium tpr@geeclaw.com
morrison@cs.man.ac.uk
Eric Nagy
Associate Director, Mountain Lake Biological Station Jim Regetz
Organization of Biological Field Stations (OBFS) Scientific Programmer/Analyst, National Center for
enagy@virginia.edu Ecological Analysis and Synthesis
Ecoinformatics.org
Sara Oldfield regetz@nceas.ucsb.edu
Secretary General
Botanic Gardens Conservation International (BGCI) Ann Reid
sara.oldfield@bgci.org Senior Program Officer
US National Academy of Sciences – Board on Life
Avihai Ostchega Sciences
Senior Program Assistant areid@nas.edu
National Academy of Sciences
aostchega@nas.edu Greg Riccardi
Director
Luvie Paglinawan Morph Bank
Research Assistant riccardi@ci.fsu.edu
FishBase
l.paglinawan@cgiar.org Joann Roskoski
Acting Assistant Director for Biology
Margaret A. Palmer National Science Foundation
Chair, freshwaterBIODIVERSITY Cross-cutting jroskosk@nsf.gov
Network
DIVERSITAS Oliver Ryder
palmer@cbl.umces.edu Director of Genetics, San Diego Zoo's Institute for
Conservation Research
David Patterson Frozen Zoo
Senior Taxonomist oryder@ucsd.edu
Global Names Architecture
dpatterson@mbl.edu Rafael O. de Sa
Program Director, Division of Environmental Biology
William Piel National Science Foundation
Curator rdesa@nsf.gov
TreeBASE
william.piel@yale.edu Inigo San Gil
Metadata Program Coordinator
Christopher Prince Long Term Ecological Research Network (LTER)
Meetings Manager isangil@canyon.lternet.edu
National Council for Science and the Environment
David Schindel woody.turner@nasa.gov

Executive Secretary
Consortium for the Barcode of Life (CBOL) Edward Vanden Berghe
schindeld@si.edu Executive Director, Ocean Biogeographic Information
System
Census of Marine Life (CoML)
Scott Snyder evberghe@iobis.org
Program Director, Systematic Biology and
Biodiversity Inventories Luciano Martins Verdade
Division of Environmental Biology Member of the Steering Committee
National Science Foundation State of Sao Paulo Research Foundation Virtual
sdsnyder@nsf.gov Institute of Biodiversity (BIOTA-FAPESP)
lmv@esalq.usp.br
Jorge Soberon
Chair of Grants Committee Michael Wach
JRS Biodiversity Foundation Managing Director, Science and Regulatory Affairs
jsoberon@ku.edu Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO)
mwach@bio.org
Eva Spehn
Executive Director Brian Wee
Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment (GMBA) Chief of External Affairs
gmba@unibas.ch National Ecological Observatory Network, Inc.
bwee@neoninc.or
Karen Stocks
Assistant Research Scientist, San Diego
Supercomputer Center
Community Cyberinfrastructure for Advanced Marine
Microbial Ecology Research and Analysis (CAMERA)
kstocks@sdsc.edu
Deborah Strauss Lynch
Diversity 2.0
dstrausslynch@aol.com
Simon Tillier
Director
European Distributed Institute of Taxonomy (EDIT)
tillier@mnhn.fr
John W. (Wes) Tunnell, Jr.

President, Southern Association of Marine
Laboratories
National Association of Marine Labs (NAML)
wes.tunnell@tamucc.edu
Woody Turner
Co-Lead, NASA
Group on Earth Observations Biodiversity Observation
Network (GEO BON)
B. Compendium of community characteristics and interests[TSK3]

C. Mission statements of biodiversity support organizations[TSK4]
Name of Organization: Mission:

A Pan-European Species PESI provides standardised and authoritative taxonomic information by integrating and securing
directories Infrastructure (PESI) Europe’s taxonomically authoritative species name registers and nomenclators (name databases) and
associated exper(tise) networks that underpin the management of biodiversity in Europe.
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation To support research in science, technology, and the health of American industries
Association of Zoos and AZA is dedicated to providing its members the services, high standards, and best practices that
Aquariums (AZA) maximize their effectiveness in animal care, wildlife science, and public education.
BioBankSA, NZG, NRF We will focus on acquiring, value enhancing, banking, using and distributing good quality biomaterials
that are safe from contamination and disease transmission. This will be conducted on behalf of the
owners and custodians of animals from which the biomaterials are collected. We will in addition also
create the largest single-port entry network database of biomaterials through partnerships with
relevant organisations. Samples of banked biomaterials will be supplied, with written consent from the
owners or custodians and in accordance with national, regional and global policy and legislation, to
national, regional and global organizations for ethical research, biotechnology development,
biodiversity conservation and in such a way as to capture the maximum benefit to society
Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) The Biodiversity Heritage Library (BHL) is an international library collaboration of natural history
museum, botanical garden, and biological research libraries working together to digitize the published
literature of biodiversity held in their respective collections and to make that literature available for
open access and responsible use as a part of a global “biodiversity commons.” The BHL consortium is
working with the global taxonomic community, rights holders and other interested parties to ensure
that this biodiversity heritage available to all.
BIOTA/FAPESP Program: The Created in 1999 the Virtual Institute of Biodiversity (http://www.biota.org.br), known as BIOTA/FAPESP
Virtual Institute of Biodiversity Program, has the mission of inventory and characterize the biodiversity of the State of São Paulo,
defining mechanisms for its conservation, restoration and sustainable use. The BIOTA program is run by
FAPESP (www.fapesp.br/english), a public foundation funded by taxpayers in the State of São Paulo and
charged with enabling scientific research in all areas of knowledge.
Board on Research Data and The Board's mission is to improve the management, policy, and use of digital data and information for
Information, National Research science and the broader society.
Council
Botanic Gardens Conservation To mobilize botanic gardens and engage partners in securing plant diversity for the well-being of people
International (BGCI) and the planet.
CAMERA The vision and overarching goal of CAMERA is the creation of a community resource to facilitate
revolutionary knowledge advances in marine microbial ecology, the microbial ecology of other natural
environments, and evolutionary biology. To achieve this goal, CAMERA has developed a new resource
to collect, maintain and disseminate raw environmental sequence data, associated metadata,
annotations and other pre-computed analyses, and associated tools that enable researchers to unravel
the discreet biology of organisms and environments.
CIESIN, Center for International CIESIN's mission is to provide access to and enhance the use of information worldwide, advancing
Earth Science Information understanding of human interactions in the environment and serving the needs of science and public
Network, The Earth Institute, and private decision making.
Columbia University
CODATA Committee on Data for The mission of CODATA is to strengthen international science for the benefit of society by promoting
Science and Technology improved scientific and technical data management and use
Consortium for the Barcode of Life Promote DNA barcoding as a global standard for identifying species by: (1) Catalyzing projects that
populate the public database of barcode records in BOLD, GenBank, EMBL and DDBJ; (2) Developing
and implementing community standards for data and laboratory protocols; (3) promoting global
participation; (4) promoting linkages and partnerships with other biodiversity informatics initiatives;
and (5) promoting interest and investment by potential users of barcode data and barcoding services.
Consultative Group on To achieve sustainable food security and reduce poverty in developing countries through scientific
International Agriculture Research research and research-related activities in the fields of agriculture, forestry, fisheries, policy, and
(CGIAR) environment. The priorities of CGIAR research are: Reducing hunger and malnutrition by producing
more and better food through genetic improvement; Sustaining agriculture biodiversity both in situ and
ex situ; Promoting opportunities for economic development and through agricultural diversification and
high-value commodities and products; Ensuring sustainable management and conservation of water,
land and forests; Improving policies and facilitating institutional innovation A critical task for 11 of the
CGIAR Centers is to maintain international genebanks, which preserve and make readily available the
plant genetic resources that form the basis of food security worldwide.
Council for Agricultural Science & The primary work of CAST is the publication of task force reports, commentary papers, special
Technology publications, and issue papers written by scientists from many disciplines. The CAST Board is
responsible for the policies and procedures followed in developing, processing, and disseminating the
documents produced. These publications and their distribution are fundamental activities that
accomplish our mission to assemble, interpret, and communicate credible science-based information
regionally, nationally, and internationally to legislators, regulators, policymakers, the media, the private
sector, and the public. The wide distribution of CAST publications to nonscientists enhances the
education and understanding of the general public. The objective of the Corporation shall be to
advance in the public interest the understanding and use of the science and technology of the
production, processing, and utilization of food and fiber. The objective shall be accomplished by (a)
serving as a resource group from which the public and government may seek information, (b)
independently identifying subjects on which scientists and technologists can provide useful information,
(c) drawing on the expertise of qualified scientists and technologists in relevant disciplines to assemble
and interpret the factual information available on the subjects identified, and (d) disseminating the
information in usable and effective form to the public, the news media, and the government, as
appropriate CAST addresses issues of animal sciences, food sciences and agricultural technology, plant
and soil sciences, and plant protection sciences with inputs from economists, social scientists,
toxicologists or plant pathologists and entomologists, weed scientists, nematologists, and legal experts
EDIT (European Distributed [1] To reduce fragmentation and to transform taxonomy into an integrated science [2] To strengthen
Institute of Taxonomy the scientific, technological and information capacities needed for Europe to understand how
biodiversity is modified through Global change [3] To progress toward a transnational entity by
encouraging durable integration of the most important European taxonomic institutions[4] To promote
the undertaking of collaborative research developing, improving and utilising the bio-informatics
technologies needed [5] To create a forum for stakeholders and end-users for taxonomy in biodiversity
and ecosystem research [6] To promote the spreading of excellence to fulfill the needs of biodiversity
and ecosystem research for taxonomy based information.
Encyclopedia of Life (EOL) Produce a website for every species of living organism, which will serve as a portal for all information
regarding that species that is available in digital form. EOL is a data aggregator that develops
informatics tools that enable data capture, organization and display. It promotes synthetic use of these
data in basic and applied research, and in educational activities.
FishBase Provide authoritative, standardized key information for all fish species on Earth, with free online access
in many languages.
Genomic Standards Consortium Community-driven standards have the best chance of success if developed within the auspices of
(GSC) international working groups. Participants in the GSC include biologists, computer scientists, those
building genomic databases and conducting large-scale comparative genomic analyses, and those with
experience of building community-based standards.
Global Biodiversity Information The mission of the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) is to facilitate free and open access to
Facility (GBIF) biodiversity data worldwide via the Internet to underpin sustainable development. Priorities, with an
emphasis on promoting participation and working through partners, include mobilising biodiversity
data, developing protocols and standards to ensure scientific integrity and interoperability, building an
informatics architecture to allow the interlinking of diverse data types from disparate sources,
promoting capacity building and catalysing development of analytical tools for improved decision-
making
Global Mountain Biodiversity The Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment (GMBA) network of DIVERSITAS actively explores and
Assessment (GMBA) of explains the great and unique biological richness of the mountains of the world. GMBA seeks to provide
DIVERSITAS input to policy makers and stakeholders for the protection and sustainable use of biodiversity in
mountain regions in a science-based adaptive management framework. Inventory and assessment of
biodiversity have become essential for policy-making and management strategies as well as for
developing and testing scientific hypotheses to progress science. There is an increasing need for
availability, accessibility and improvement of high quality online mountain biodiversity databases, an
initiative led by the Global Mountain Biodiversity Assessment of DIVERSITAS in cooperation with the
Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). GMBA will soon offer the first thematic mountain portal
on GBIF geo-referenced biodiversity data, for integrated analysis and spatial visualization of biodiversity
information in relation to mountain life zones, climate, and other important parameters. This is to be
used for synthesis, for facilitating sustainability decisions and for forming advanced hypothesis on
Mountain biodiversity.
Global Names Architecture To provide a names based semantic architecture to underpin biodiversity information management
services
IUCN - International Union for IUCN's mission is to influence, encourage and assist societies throughout the world to conserve the
Conservation of Nature integrity and diversity of nature and to ensure that any use of natural resources is equitable and
ecologically sustainable.
John D. and Catherine T. The MacArthur Foundation supports creative people and effective institutions committed to building a
MacArthur Foundation more just, verdant, and peaceful world. MacArthur’s conservation grantmaking protects the
biodiversity of the planet, while balancing the needs of communities that depend upon natural
resources for their survival. With the increasing threat of climate change, the Foundation also supports
efforts to adapt conservation strategies to a rapidly changing environment, particularly in eight
hotspots around the world.
JRS Biodiversity Foundation Mission: the Foundation defined a mission within the field of biodiversity: to enhance knowledge and
promote the understanding of biological diversity for the benefit and sustainability of life on earth.
LifeWatch infrastructure for To prepare for the construction of a pan-European research infrastructure serving the science
biodiversity research community in conducting first class Biodiversity research in order to provide for answers to political
problems and questions concerning Biodiversity in its broadest sense.
Marine Biodiversity and MarBEF, a network of excellence funded by the European Union and consisting of 94 European marine
Ecosystem Functioning (MarBEF) institutes, is a platform to integrate and disseminate knowledge and expertise on marine biodiversity,
with links to researchers, industry, stakeholders and the general public.
Morphbank Image Repository Morphbank provides an image and metadata repository for biodiversity researchers. The goals of the
repository include creating a system for sharing images and metadata among researchers and with
other users, and allowing users to carefully annotate their images and to link those annotations to
controlled vocabularies and ontologies. The system includes an extensive Web site and search and data
exchange services.
National Aeronautics and Space The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is the civilian space agency of the USA. Its
Administration (NASA) Earth Science Division uses satellite, airborne, and in situ platforms to study the Earth system and its
components, how they are changing over time, and the drivers of these changes. Recently, NASA
established a Biodiversity program that funds research using data products from its observation
platforms and associated models to understand the patterns and processes of terrestrial and aquatic
biodiversity. NASA is also one of three organizations co-leading the development of the Group on Earth
Observations Biodiversity Observation Network (GEO BON).
National Association of Marine NAML is a nonprofit organization of over 120 members employing more than 10,000 scientists,
Laboratories (NAML) engineers, and professionals and representing marine and Great lakes labs stretching from Guam to
Bermuda and Alaska to Puerto Rico. Member institutions of NAML work together to improve quality
and effectiveness of ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes research, education, and outreach. Member
organizations are considered as unique "windows on the sea".
National Center for Ecological * Advance the state of ecological knowledge through the search for general patterns and principles in
Analysis & Synthesis existing data; * Organize and synthesize ecological information in a manner useful to researchers,
resource managers, and policy makers addressing important environmental issues; * Influence the way
ecological research is conducted and promote a culture of synthesis, collaboration, and data sharing
Natural Science Collections The Natural Science Collections Alliance is a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit association that supports
Alliance (NSCA) natural science collections, their human resources, the institutions that house them, and their research
activities for the benefit of science and society. Our members are part of an international community of
museums, botanical gardens, herbariums, universities and other institutions that house natural science
collections and utilize them in research, exhibitions, academic and informal science education, and
outreach activities. Membership in the NSC Alliance links you to a network of institutions, scientists and
other professionals in North America through which you can share news, information and common
concerns - and help shape the future of our community.
NatureServe Provide the scientific basis for effective conservation action.

Ocean Biogeographic Information The Ocean Biogeographic Information System (OBIS; http://www.iobis.org), and its global network of
System Regional and Thematic OBIS Nodes, integrates data from many sources, over a wide range of marine
themes, from the poles to the equator, and from microbes to whales. All OBIS data is made available
free and open, and contributes to management of the marine environment, and to the creation of
scientific knowledge.
Ocean Genome Legacy, Inc. The Ocean Genome Legacy is a non-profit marine research institution and biological specimen
repository dedicated to exploring and preserving the wealth of information contained in the genes
(DNA) of marine organisms, with special emphasis on endangered, rare, unusual and ecologically critical
species and ecosystems. Its mission is to acquire, authenticate, study, preserve, develop, and distribute
genetic materials, biological specimens, information, technology, and standards needed to advance
basic and applied research in marine conservation, medicine and biotechnology. OGL's aim is to
promote marine species and ecosystem conservation by providing research materials, technology,
policy, educational materials and educational opportunities to academic, governmental, and non-
governmental research organizations and to private industry.
Organization of Tropical Studies To provide leadership in education, research, and the responsible use of natural resources in the tropics
Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew (Incl. Kew’s mission is: to inspire and deliver science-based plant conservation worldwide, enhancing the
Millennium Seed Bank Project) quality of life.
TreeBASE: A Database of TreeBASE has the mission to capture, preserve, and share phylogenetic trees and morphological and
Phylogenetic Knowledge molecular phylogenetic datasets published in peer-reviewed scientific publications. Data are distributed
freely to the scientific community using digital serializations to promote meta-analyses, synthetic
analyses, and the reuse of phylogenetic data. Nearly all data objects in TreeBASE can be referenced
with URIs and a web service API that allows annotation and integration with third-party data services in
order to promote the use of phylogenetic knowledge in biodiversity informatics.
The Academy of Sciences for the * Recognize, support and promote excellence in scientific research in the developing world; * Respond
Developing World (TWAS) to the needs of young scientists in S&T-lagging developing countries; * Promote South-South and
South-North cooperation in science, technology and innovation; * Encourage scientific research and
sharing of experiences in solving major problems facing developing countries.
Zoological Society of San Diego San Diego Zoo’s Institute for Conservation Research Mission: We generate, share, and apply scientific
knowledge vital to the conservation of animals, plants, and habitats. We help shape the vision of the
San Diego Zoo and lead in fulfilling its conservation mission.
Appendix D. Respondents to Questionnaire


Draft Report NCSE Biodiversity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Draft Report NCSE Biodiversity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DRAFT 5 - REVIEWER COPY ONLY – DO NOT CITE 15 June 2010

Creating a Ten-Year Global, Integrative, Multi-

Results of a December 1 – 2, 2009 Workshop: “Enabling

2. Perspectives from the workshop

ii. Specific approaches

c. Strengths, assets and needs

i. Strengths and assets

ii. Community issues

iii. Other issues

iv. Proposed Solutions

B. Key Issues of Concern ........................................................................................................................................... 10

4. Gaps in supporting information

Section II. Key Findings and Recommendations.........................................................................................30

Multi-dimensional integrative research

Research infrastructure and support

B. Achieving Our Goals .............................................................................................................................................. 30

Role of biodiversity research community: Community actions needed

Role of government agencies, foundations and others: government actions needed

Section II. References

The Status of Biodiversity Research

• Genetic – GenBank, EMBL, DDBJ, Barcode of Life

Information technology will be a critical component in enabling a new generation of multi-dimensional

• International and interdisciplinary collaboration in virtual laboratories created on the Web;

Biodiversity in a Rapidly Changing World [TSK2]

A large and vibrant international community of nongovernmental organizations supports biodiversity

• Develop a compendium of the kinds of enabling support currently being provided;

Section I. The Biodiversity Research Support Community: capacity, activities,

A. Current Situation: Characterization of the Community

Non-governmental organizations and institutions provide a large proportion of the

How much of the institutional budget is directed towards biodiversity?

Who is the primary funding source?

Primary Funding Sources

Allowed to select up to three

What is the geographic focus of the organization?

What types of organizational activities are undertaken?

What types of information are provided?

Information Provided by Organization

Allowed to select all that apply

What taxonomic groups are addressed?

What types of ecological data are provided?

More than 20 types of ecological data are provided by organizations including:

How are data used for management?

Biodiversity/Ecosystem Resource Management

Allowed to select all that apply

What types of habitat are covered?

Habitat Types Covered

Allowed to select all that apply

What types of genetic data are provided?

What types of digital library resources are provided?

What types of web accessible data and information are provided?

Web Services – Applications/Tools

Allowed to select all that apply

Is biodiversity information infrastructure provided?

Who are the target users?

Are products and services available without charge?

What kinds of logistical support are provided?

o Education through publications

• Networking and Collaboration

Do organizations assist with research permitting?

2. Perspectives from the Workshop

Balance between top down and bottom up –

There are 2 investment marketplaces:

– academic marketplace (provider- driven)