Cactus genome sequencing project

[IanW]

The problem here appears to be that you expect everything to be available via the WWW, whereas the BCSS still does most communication via printed paper. Isn't it obvious that the research & conservation funds raise nearly all of their money from people who subscribe to BCSS publications?

Well, no, not really. Why even have a conservation section of the site if this is true? Why not just say "Please contact so and so for information on conservation issues"?

The funds are very efficient in the sense that 100% goes to target projects - I think I am correct in saying that the parent BCSS charity pays any administration expenses.

This seems contradictory, on one hand we have not enough projects to fund, and on the other 100% of funds are going to target projects so are being succesfully spent. Which is it?

why don't you get involved with the BCSS? Attend the BCSS AGM in ten days time and speak directly with the people actually administering these funds to find out what projects are in the pipeline. Perhaps volunteer to help improve our charity's web site?

I've done exactly that many a time and have made it clear I'm well placed to do exactly this because I have a fairly successful career in the field so it's likely I can do as good a job as anyone here of improving the BCSS' digital presence. However, as Lindsey alluded to, the problem with BCSS and volunteer resources isn't lack of offers as I know first hand, it's the fear of change amongst those who hold power in the society such that anyone volunteering or pushing for modernisation gets ostracised as a troublemaker and has their offers rejected. That's precisely why the point you make in your first paragraph of the BCSS having very old paper based methods of managing this sort of thing is true, not for lack of people wanting to change it, but for lack of willingness to change it.

I spent about 5 years offering my services, and pushing for change, and whilst my help was accepted and used in a few minor ways (i.e. technical assistance in migrating from the old forum to this current forum), I wouldn't consider volunteering again until the society has shown a willingness to change because I've learnt the hard way that it's fruitless to try and push to improve things with the current status quo. Some people are strongly opposed to help because they are adamant they want to hold onto their positions, powers, and responsibilities, whilst simultaneously claiming they don't have enough time to do them properly. As the old adage goes, you cannot help those who do not wish to be helped.

Reading the minutes, it's clear from the number of rejected applications that the cttee seeks to fund proposals that are within the remit of our society in terms of species (such as the rejection of a Ledebouria project, see September 2013) and that are of sufficiently wide interest to our membership (Echinopsis terscheckii, December 2011; Leptocereus February 2011 - both rejected). In December 2013 we read about the "current healthy state of the Fund and current lack of projects".

This is interesting Phil, are you sure Echinopsis terscheckii was rejected on the basis of sufficiently wide interest? A plant that is grown widely in the society and has featured in many people's trips to the southern ends of South America sounds like it fully fits the bill of something relevant to the society. Are you sure it wasn't rejected for another reason? Also was this a research or conservation project? It would seem a little disturbing if conservation funding is being refused for a species of cactus based wholly on some arbitrary definition of popularity, but I'm assuming this isn't the case and this was a research request, because as far as I'm aware E. terscheckii isn't at risk?

[Aiko]

Some people are strongly opposed to help because they are adamant they want to hold onto their positions, powers, and responsibilities, whilst simultaneously claiming they don't have enough time to do them properly.

This is something that holds some truth where I work. I offered my help a few times after I heard a department nearby mine complaining they were too busy and were not having enough time to do their things. My offered was gratefully accepted with a mention like "thank you, we will let you know how you can help real soon". I never heard back from them in all occasions.

Needless to say I have not offered any help after a handful of offerings, even though the complaints about work load continued. Very discouraging, and very unlikely I will help even if they would come to me. It is such a stupid way of scaring helpful and knowledgable people away.

[Lindsey]

Why not just say "Please contact so and so for information on conservation issues"?

Or at least, "This information is only available to members of the BCSS - please join!" with a link to the relevant webpage. (Slightly off topic I know, but I had the idea that quite a few people join the Society after seeing the website or Forum. There will presumably be statistics given at the 2015 AGM?)

[Lindsey]

http://www.bcss.org.uk/downloads/Aug14agd.pdf
which mentions the publication of a relevant article in an issue of the RHS "Plantsman" under para.5(b).

Found it! https://www.rhs.org.uk/about-the-rhs/pu ... -june-2014 thanks to Paul's Agave thread.

[Phil_SK]

This is interesting Phil, are you sure Echinopsis terscheckii was rejected on the basis of sufficiently wide interest? A plant that is grown widely in the society and has featured in many people's trips to the southern ends of South America sounds like it fully fits the bill of something relevant to the society. Are you sure it wasn't rejected for another reason? Also was this a research or conservation project?

It was research funding. "The committee had agreed to support the Manfreda project mentioned previously, but one concerning the study of Echinopsis terschekii locations was rejected following committee comments about its overall validity and interest to our members."

[IanW]

Maybe it was about it's suitability for getting high or making tequila

[Pete A]

This discussion seems to have been sidetracked away from the subject matter onto a discussion about the BCSS research committee. However nowhere do I see any evidence that the researchers have applied for a research grant and/or been rejected.

My personal opinion is that this research is worthwhile in its own right, but if I was on the research committee I would probably vote to reject it. The reasons being: (1) it's a cash-crop. (2) the research is only investigating properties to improve the crops value (to society). (3) the species is an ancient man-made hybrid of no interest to the hobby. (4) from our point of view there are many better species to investigate (eg blossfeldia) which would provide much better information about the evolution of the cactaceae. However I am not on the committee so they may see it differently if an application was made.

On that basis I think it's a good subject for crowd-funding which is what the researcher are doing. Lets not get distracted from the topic subject.

[DaveW]

Firstly I am not claiming the Conservation Committee does otherwise, but it should be a rule as a Cactus & Succulent Society fund it should only be available for what the majority of the membership consider genuine succulents and their conservation, never plants disputed as to their true Succulent status (Welwitschia as an example). We have enough genuine Succulents to concern ourselves with and conserve without broadening it out to "Fringe Succulents" or Geophytes which are better the province of other societies.

The recent floods in Chile I mentioned elsewhere also show the error of relying solely on in situ conservation. Anybody applying for Society Conservation Funds should be required to export sufficient seed of the plants to our Society for ex situ propagation and conservation among our membership. The Yavia conservation the Society did should be the model for all those wishing to apply for our Society Conservation Fund.

[D^L]

Hi all,
I’m an occasional reader of the forum but I came across this thread and thought I could add some notes as Chair of the Research Subcommittee. I’ll try and give my personal perspective on this. One thing I strongly agree about is that we need to get the results of the work done more clearly available for members to see. Sorry for the very long post!
HOW WE WORK
To be clear, there are two subcommittees, one for conservation and one for research, I can only comment in any detail on the latter though there will be a lot of similarities.
The Research Subcommittee advises the Board of Trustees (BOTS) on the use of members’ donations to fund research related to cacti and other succulents. In practice, the Research Subcommittee largely fund habitat surveys. These are done for all sorts of reasons, including:
- studying areas not examined for a long time to see what is there and perhaps find new species, or
- gathering information for books and monographs, or
- clarifying conservation status.
If we received an application for a project to help conserve a species, population or area that was already known to be under threat, then the Conservation Subcommittee would deal with this.
Sometimes the Research Subcommittee gets applications to fund more direct science like DNA studies. In fact we are actually doing that today on the Oreocereus clade. However, such applications are rare, since the projects are very expensive to run and often researchers focus on funding sources that have deeper pockets. We offer up to £2000 as a rule, though more for an exceptional project. This might sound like a huge amount to the average member (it does to me), but for laboratory studies this is a small proportion of likely costs.
COMMENTS ON RECENT POSTINGS
VALUE OF SUPPORTING BCSS FUNDS - There was a period where we didn’t get any suitable requests for funding and, while the fund built up, there were few, if any, awards made. IanW’s concerns about the value of supporting the BCSS conservation and research fund reflected this past history. This situation has changed fairly dramatically, at least for the Research Subcommittee, and you can be sure donations will be used to further good work.
This problem arose because the maximum amount we offered, £1000, had not changed for a decade or more. Gradually the value of this eroded and became very small when compared to the researchers’ actual costs.
We recently increased the limit to £2000 and, at least in the Research Subcommittee, we have seen a significant increase in good applications. Recently we have funded a large project with Olwen Grace at Kew looking broadly at the classification of the Crassulaceae and one on improving resolution of the Oreocereus clade with Boris Schlumpberger. We are also assessing an application on Stapeliads at the moment.
FEEDBACK - It is the intention that all unsuccessful applications are given feedback though this can be very difficult, especially for unsuccessful applicants. Strictly, while the subcommittees provide input, the feedback comes from BOTS, so I haven't seen all the details of the feedback. Clearly, in the case of discontent that IanW alluded to, this could have gone better and following that exchange we have been trying to improve the feedback, (see the note about Ledebouria below). I think that this is a work in progress and we need to keep improving. I’m personally keen that we are very clear why the application failed and we are being more careful about this. This might result in some debate with unsuccessful applicants but, in the long run, I think it is the right thing to do. Of course, some applicants may not like the answer, even if it is well presented.
SCOPE OF PROJECTS/FUNDING - We are very conscious that the money we recommend spending is donated by members to support conservation and research, and we have a responsibility to allocate it in line with members’ interests. So, as noted in an earlier post, we focus on clear cactus and succulent work and on activities that we think the general membership would benefit from. So, for example, Ledebouria is out of scope and our feedback to the applicant suggested other societies they might try for funding. They were very appreciative of that suggestion.
The Echinopsis terscheckii project was also mentioned regarding its interest to members. Here we decided it was not of interest, not because the species is uninteresting, but because the work was aimed at finding a few locations and was not going to add to the collective knowledge of this widespread and well studied species. In principle, there might have been some benefit from this, but we judged that the members would not think this a worthwhile expenditure of their donations.
WHAT WE HAVE FUNDED - The website includes some feedback on research projects and a list of projects funded by the Research Subcommittee at http://www.bcss.org.uk/research.php. Despite perhaps appearing out of date, this list is very close to ‘up to date’. In 2013/2014 there were very few applications that we have wanted to fund as a result of the low funding limit. Following a recent increase from £1000 to £2000, we have had some good applications (Crassulaceae, Oreocereus clade, Stapeliads) and these will be added to the list soon.
Never the less, I’m disappointed that the actual results of projects haven’t been clearer for members, for instance though acknowledgements of the type Chris Rogerson suggested. In principle it is a requirement of the funding that a report is produced for the journal or Bradleya. Sometimes there has been an article that has not acknowledged our help and sometimes no article is provided. I have been thinking about how to deal with this for some time and this exchange has re-focused me on that.
A GOOD PROJECT HAS
- Species that are of interest to our (largely) horticultural members.
- A project where the results are likely to be of interest to members. No project will fascinate everyone, but we want something that benefits the hobby.
- A clear plan of work, with thought-through objectives that are clearly do-able.
- Ideally a researcher that has a track record of finishing work and putting the results in the popular literature, as opposed to simply the American Journal of Botany, for example.
THE GENOME PROJECT - Regarding the genome project that set this all off, I have suggested that, if they want funding from the BCSS Research Fund, they need to submit an application like all others do. For me I would like to see what benefit our members would gain from the proposal, if we were to fund it.
THE RESEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE
I hope this helps clarify what we are doing, it is not intended to be in any way opaque. You can see the membership of the Subcommittee on the web. We are a range of individuals with long experience both in the hobby and research. Some are professional botanists. I, on the other hand, have grown cacti and other succulents for 40 years, and am also interested in the science surrounding them. In my day job, I am paid to get value for the customer out of research funding.
As Chair of the Research Subcommittee, I value the views of the membership, please keep comments and ideas coming!
Cheers
David Lambie
Bristol BCSS

[Phil_SK]

That's really helpful, thank you.
Do you think there is any scope for a 'think of a project' then 'raise the money' order of things? The project could be something thought of by the committee or brought to you by an outside bidder as now.