"in response to Jan MArcinWeslawski comment to topic 1. "
The backbone of the biodiversity research as we all agree is the proper identification
of organisms - the taxonomy. This requires as Krzysztof Jazdzewski said "the sitzfleish" - it means lots of time with the microscope, endurance rather than specific talent. To identify e.g. meiofauna nematods, one needs to work several years with the subject before he gets enough skill to be independent specialist.
For the last 50-years the scientists from NAS countries were having a unique privilage and social comfort of permanent employment. When I was getting my job after finishing theUniversity in 70-ties, I knew I can stay there untill my retirement. At the same time my colleagues in UK were fighting for the next contract, another "soft money", they were facing the positions reductions of Thatchers' policy. Poles, Lithuanians, et al from NAS were having
comfort to develope the "sitzfleish". So, we could built a stronghold of biodiversity in Europe. Unfortunately, the social comfort goes hand in hand with relaxation. For example, Poland has probably the best in Europe record of insects and spiders; tens of high class specialists were editing numerous volumes of Insects in "Fauna of Poland". Now many of them, cry that in the EU biodiversity programmes their effort is not visible. The reason is simple - data were published in local journals and there was no mechanism to promote competition and visibility. Lots of sitzfleish with no effect for the international scientific community. Our biodiversity research was by large organised as XIX century gentleman hobby - a landlord who collected butterflies in his fields. No wonder it remains unknown.
Still, there is a chance - compared to the EU countries we are having a lot of scientists on permanent positions with long time experience (only recently the juveniles are coming for the contract jobs).
We may exploit this knowledge, but who will work more if there is no need to do so ?
Maria Szymelfenig |
