to give you a sense of the group, I think it safe to say that we are very skeptical about replacing organismal based systematics with a few hundred base pairs of DNA. on the other hand, as a group, we are very enthusiastic about our sequence data. we thought that additional funds could be usefully used to:
survey, database and make available current DNA / tissues collections
improve / standardize storage conditions for above-mentioned collections
fix existing DNA databases (Genbank, EMBL) so that they more fully serve the needs of systematics
support research into best storage conditions / preservation methods in general for DNA / tissues
facilitate acquisition of sequence data by systematists who have no interest in ever darkening the door
of a molecular lab themselves
provide supplements to PBI / TOL / systematics grants to enable these to acquire sequence data without
compromising their other goals
support a competition that would solicit the best ideas for expanding / optimizing our use of the power of
sequence data. that is, we felt it too early to decide on one specific approach (e.g., sequence
all collections in museum x) but thought that soliciting ideas and funding a set of the best
would help to determine the best way to proceed
***************
Finally, I attempted to start the discussion by putting some things along the lines of the following on the board:
I. What is actually being proposed? Spectrum from…..
DNA samples as the central entities, replacing real specimens, for:
?nomenclature? ?systematics? ?identification?
to
DNA sequence(s) must be associated with description of new species? (why stop there? Why not: all systematic work of any sort, from species description to floristics to monographs require DNA sequences of the included species?)
to
Intensify sequence gathering but without otherwise altering the way we work
to
DNA sequences as currently (increasingly) being used in systematics EXCEPT fix genbank / EMBL
II. Issues:
A. Errors:
1. DNA NOT free from subjective assessments (also not free from error)
2. Tautz misunderstands how codes of nomenclature work, types, etc.
B. Pragmatic:
1. Which locus / loci?
2. Error prevention: DNA = DNA = DNA
3. Jokes about 8th grader can do it aside: there are very real difficulties in getting sequence data for some samples / organisms / loci:
DNA quality
Primer design
Natural variation within species
Orthologs / paralogs / multiple gene copies
Hybridization / organellar capture, etc. etc.
4. Puts developing countries out of the picture
5. Competition for resources: surely it must be better to train (and EMPLOY) more systematists
6. if just about ID, cheaper ways to do it for many organisms - analogous to finger prints / cornea patterns for humans
C. Philosophical:
1. Confusing nomenclature with systematics
2. Confusing identification (service) with systematics
3. Is it wise to strive for the LEAST that we can accomplish? I.e., yes, DNA is only tool for some study of some organisms but this is not desirable - why limit ourselves to that for other organisms that have right morphologies?
4. no way could it replace systematics driven by highly specialized knowledge
D. If going to do this, how to begin?
1. Why not fix genbank first? Already >100,000 sequences there. Seems nuts to start anew.
2. Taxon specific (e.g., the cetacean example) to determine:
(a) what is needed to achieve
(b) real benefits / uses