Cactus genome sequencing project

[Lindsey]

Many thanks, David L, for your helpful post and clarification of the activities of the BCSS Research Committee. I think there may have been some confusion on this thread, regarding what is "conservation" and what is "research" (... or is that just me? )
The MSG, if I remember correctly, has one fund that covers both conservation and research for mesembs

Please can someone (re-)post a link to the BCSS page(s) about conservation, research, and the names of members of the two committees?

[Tony R]

http://www.bcss.org.uk/research.php link to members at bottom of this page.

http://www.bcss.org.uk/conservation.php members? sadly, its chairman Bill Maddams recently passed away.

[D^L]

I’m not sure I understand your question, Phil, so try me again if I'm answering the wrong question :-).

In principle, I see nothing at all wrong with the "think of a project" then "get the money" model: it is pretty much what happens today, at least for sums up to round £2000. I guess you are suggesting that the initial proposal might be less than "fully worked up", but instead is a germ of an idea?

The Subcommittee have toyed with us suggesting proposals or asking for ideas for projects in the past but the overall feeling was that getting people working in the specific field to come up with ideas would generate better, more successful work. For me working up the proposal is a pretty big job: establishing :
- what the detailed aim is, i.e. what the world and the funders would learn from it,
- what the steps in the project would be (for example, 1. gather specimens to use (where from, how many etc), 2. apply DNA assessment (methodology/system?), 3. analysis strategy (using MrBaynes or ...), report etc)
- how much would this all cost for travel, licences, materials etc
- who would be competent and available to actually do the work.

If you are suggesting that the Subcommittee comes up with the idea and does all this work, or alternatively that someone else has an idea and the Subcommittee does the detail and finds workers - I don’t think that would work we wouldn’t have time.

Alternatively:- What about person A having the idea, person B working out the details and submitting it and person(s) C (and D) doing the technical work? In principle, this is fine but it sounds quite a complex way of working up a proposal. All of this coming from one person ensures that the ideas, capabilities and work availability are all considered consistently but, in principle, it should be possible.

On the other hand if you have thought of a better way to make this work well, please make a suggestion.

Cheers
David

[ALAN70]

Reference the comments about the Research Committee and the rejection of a proposal concerning Echinopsis terschekii when discussing the cactus genome sequencing project. The following facts show how a misconception has arisen about what was not considered appropriate. The core of the proposal was to test the validity of the effectiveness of a maximum entropy based modelling software package by visiting known locations of Echinopsis terschekii to take validation data at those locations. The request was for £1,500 detailed as £530 for fuel for the car, £545 for food, and £500 for “camping” although it was stated that the team of two people had camping equipment.

Extract from the Research Committee’s report to BoT’s Dec. 2011 meeting. (Sent to BoTs)
The Committee has agreed to support the research proposal, mentioned in the last report, concerning various aspects of the status of the genus Manfreda. However, a proposal by an Argentinian student to study Echinopsis terschekii locations was rejected. The student was informed of the Committee’s decision which, amongst others, included the following comments “Echinopsis terschekii is very widespread and certainly not endangered (although it may be locally). Therefore conservation is not a justification for this work. We are not convinced that validation of the model for one species may help with other species. We think the attempted validation of a computer model does seem to be a very academic exercise which will be of very little interest to our members and we do not think the project to be an appropriate use of BCS Research Fund money.”

Minutes of BoT’s Dec 2011 meeting. (Published by BoTs on the web).
6. Research Committee… The Committee has agreed to support the research proposal, mentioned in the last report, concerning various aspects of the status of the genus Manfreda. However, a proposal by an Argentinian student to study Echinopsis terschekii locations was rejected following committee comments about its overall validity and interest to our members.

Minutes of the BCSS 2012 AGM. (Posted to all BCSS branches.)
10. Since the 2011 AGM the Research Committee has agreed to support two research projects:…….
c). A third proposal by an Argentinian student to study Echinopsis terschekii locations was rejected. The student intended to visit sites using a computer programme which supposedly would identify suitable areas where Echinopsis terschekii would be found. If the programme worked then it could be used for other species. The student was informed of the Committee’s decision which, amongst others, included the following comments “Echinopsis terschekii is very widespread and certainly not endangered (although it may be locally). Therefore conservation is not a justification for this work. We are not convinced that validation of the model for one species may help with other species. We think the attempted validation of a computer model does seem to be a very academic exercise which will be of very little interest to our members and we do not think the project to be an appropriate use of BCS Research Fund money.”

Alan Hill. National Minute Secretary and Research Committee Secretary.

[D^L]

Thanks Alan, for that much more comprehensive explanation of the E. terscheckii project and for the example of excellent feedback.
Cheers
DAvid

[IanW]

Really appreciate the posts Alan and David. I'll be honest, I've found many society officials in the past quite combative on topics like this where scrutiny is placed on elements of the society, but your posts are extremely constructive and helpful. This is much appreciated and it's great to see that there's certainly a good degree of healthy decision making on these committees and the problem seems to largely be about communicating this sort of information to donors past, present, and potentially future.

It's much easier to justify donating to a fund when you know what it does, when you know that projects have been rejected for sound reasons, and when you know that funding that's accepted is going to genuinely sound projects!