| |
Opening Statement for Session 2: Biodiversity information: What services are needed and how the data providers should supply them?by Christian Köppel (moderator)
1. What mechanisms are needed to ensure a permanent dialogue between providers and users?
I think, that providers and users find themselves automatically. End-users choose and use that service in the web, which is fulfilling in the best way their requirements. However the requirements concerning content and ways of data recruitment are very different. On the one hand it depends very strongly on the user-groups, which have different needs and on the other hand on the data providers, who want to serve different target groups.
A problem exists only, when the data providers serves a web supply for a special target group, e.g. the broader public, and "nobody" uses this offer. This happens fairly often, when scientists in museums, institutes or public authorities realise an internet application. Two reasons are responsible for this:
- Scientists are thinking usually at other scientists, by establishing an online-service. From them they get their appreciation and reputation or are invited to be a member in the next public funded project.
- Scientists are usually not specialised in educational theory, web-design and programming. Of course, they work mostly in a team and discuss such topics.
However, I do not mean that online-offers of scientists aren't (or could not be) successful. There are a lot of positive examples, like www.fishbase.org with 7 million hits/month (6/2003). But if they are not successful (getting only a few visits), this could be the reason.
So a good and direct scale to see how accepted an online-offer is, are the number of visits in a certain time period (day/week/month) in relation to the size of the target group. Therefore an online database about tardigrada can't be compared with a fish database.
An other way to reveal the different specific needs and demands of end-users are market studies (questionnaires) or special internet based measurement tools to evaluate priorities of products and services (Measurement tool = Server based piece of software to analyse frequency and duration of visits concerning selected categories of information combined with adapted interrogation forms). Such mechanisms are able to ensure a permanent dialogue between providers and users.
For this a lot of studies are part of a lot of projects currently, e.g. GBIF, ENBI, Species2000 Europa.
Questions:
- What other mechanisms are needed to ensure a permanent dialogue between providers and users?
- What are your experiences concerning an online-offer and user-response?
2. Who are the potential users of Biodiversity Information?
End-users of Biodiversity Information are:
- government agencies (nature conservation, environmental protection, …),
- customs, police (excise officials),
- NGOs (conservation organisations, conservationists),
- planning office, experts (biologists),
- academic institutions (universities, colleges),
- education (schools, teachers, pupils),
- agriculture, forestry, fishery, crop protection, horticulture holdings
- fisherman, hunter, gardener,
- private companies (pharmacy, biotechnology, horticulture,…)
- medicine, toxicology, veterinary medicine,
- museums (natural history museums),
- botanical and zoological gardens,
- pet shops
- tour operators, airlines
- journalists, publishing houses, science magazines
- decision makers (politician, administration, court)
- the interested public (families)
Questions:
- Do you miss any end-user group of Biodiversity Information?
- What is the main end-user group for ENBI?
3. Towards a free plus premium access model?
On the one side there is the European Act on Free Access to Information. You find this especially in the conception of GBIF, making the world's Biodiversity data freely and universally available. On the other side public institutions are more and more short of money.
Patricia Mergen writes the following in her discussion paper for the e-conference "Open-access for Biodiversity information" in the chapter "Sharing of data for profit or for free":
"GBIF's principle is to make Biodiversity data freely available to all, adding the issue of profit might spoil the whole idea. Now we of course all agree that collecting such data is as well time and cost effective. There is a prize to pay for human and technical resources. These costs might be paid by public and/or private funds, by the selling of the products issued from the correct usage of the information shared. There should be an agreement on minimal but enough informative data to be accessible freely."
Questions:
- What do you think about the commercialisation of Biodiversity data?
- What amount of commerce can ENBI handle?
- What kinds of models exist?
4. From data for scientists to data for society
The requirements of scientists and society concerning content and ways of data recruitment are very different. A good example is the naming of animals and plants. Society needs vernacular names, scientists work only with scientific names. Also the language to present and explain results is different.
Questions:
- Is it the task of scientists to provide both, data for scientists and data for society?
- Or should scientists concentrate on what is their original job, what they can do the best, that is do research?
- How to bring this together?
- What's the role of ENBI?
5. Distinguishing characteristics between basic research and commercial exploitation of Biodiversity
The aim of commercial exploitation of Biodiversity is to generate money (profit). Commercial exploitation of ecosystem, species and specimens can be:
- +- harmless (sustainable exploitation), e.g. bacteria in pharmacy and biotechnology, agriculture, forestry, fishery, hunting, tourism, photos and movies,
- +- dangerous (destructive exploitation), e.g. uncontrolled urban spread, agriculture, forestry, fishery, hunting, tourism, photos and movies,
- +- necessary, to generate an income for the local population, which may lead to the protection of an ecosystem or a certain species, e.g. whale watching, trophy hunting of wild animals in Africa.
The aim of basic research is to reach a better understanding of a fact (for itself). Basic research of ecosystem, species and specimens can be:
- +- harmless, e.g. field work, taxonomy, documentation (photos and movies)
- +- dangerous, e.g. research with lethal microbes or radioactivity, introducing alien species into new ecosystems (neobiota).
Therefore I see no big difference between basic research and commercial exploitation. It depends only on how responsible a person or a society acts.
Questions:
- How we can define responsibility in this context?
- What's the role of ENBI?
|
