The economics of ants
Let's talk about ebay some more. You can buy a lot of mounted specimens of butterflies, beetles, spiders, moths, even centipedes, but you almost never see ants for sale, unless they are in amber. Why is that? I get that they are just not as colorful or large as other insects and so don't appear to be as spectacular (although of course we know they are most definitely spectacular!), so I can see why people who like to collect pretty things wouldn't be interested, but what about myrmecologists? If I collected some spectacular ant -- let's say a Thaumatomyrmex -- wouldn't some ant geek (like me) be willing to put out some cash to own one? To be able to look at it under their own microscope, add it to their collection, show it off to friends? Leaving aside any ethical considerations about whether it should be in a museum or whatever. I just don't get why there is no market for that sort of thing. Does anybody have any thoughts? I would really like to know.
The other thing I don't get is the whole economics of ant taxonomy. It seems to be a fact that there is a lack of ant taxonomists. It also seems to be a fact that there is plenty of work for ant taxonomists to do. Talk to any myrmecologists and I suspect they all have boxes and boxes of specimens that they need to get to that may never see the light of day. The Harvard Ant Room certainly does. And there is still a ton of revisions that need to be done, descriptions that need to be written, phylogenies that need to be worked out. And very few people to do them all. Right at this moment, I would love to find someone to help me sort, pin, identify my ants -- but there's nobody. Anyone with the skills and/or interest is already doing it and busy with their own work. All of that would seem to indicate that there would be a market for ant taxonomists but somehow it doesn't work out that way. The job market is, as far as I can tell, miniscule, and not getting any larger. And so there is no incentive whatsoever for anyone to become an ant taxonomist. I'm not really sure what the answer to this problem is, but I find it quite perplexing and frustrating. And depressing.
This photo is from the Ant Course 2002 (my year). How many of these people will actually become taxonomists?
In reference to your question about the picture - anybody with talent can be a taxonomist with the species one is working with. Does one have talent? If one can’t hang then they simply can’t hang – it is what it is. What’s most important is - when one graduates does one understand the system(s) they are working with. Collecting and identifying does not qualify for a Ph.D. Any school that would allow such a narrow scope of work to pass – besides the revision of a genus – is passing marginal amount of material at best. In regards to positions - knowledge for knowledge sake does not sell - hence the lack of positions.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteIn reference to your question about the picture - anybody with talent can be a taxonomist with the species one is working with.
Perhaps I should rephrase the question to: "How many of these people will actually become PAID taxonomists?"
Does one have talent? If one can’t hang then they simply can’t hang – it is what it is.
I'm not sure what you mean by "hang."
What’s most important is - when one graduates does one understand the system(s) they are working with. Collecting and identifying does not qualify for a Ph.D. Any school that would allow such a narrow scope of work to pass – besides the revision of a genus – is passing marginal amount of material at best.
I am not talking about a PhD program. I am talking about the lack of professional technicians and parataxonomists -- individuals able to provide assistance in specimen preparation, processing, data entry and retrieval, identification and classification.
In regards to positions - knowledge for knowledge sake does not sell - hence the lack of positions.
Knowledge for knowledge sake does not sell? I disagree. As I said before, I would pay someone for a little bit of their knowledge if they knew something that would be helpful to me, namely ant taxonomy. I have talked to other myrmecologists who agree. Unfortunately, I can't find anyone to give my money to.
It's frequently necessary for academics who work with a specific genus or a specific area to become skilled taxonomists within that area or genus in order to complete their research. These same people are generally very helpful when approached by a colleague who needs assistance within their area of taxonomical expertise. It's nice, and impressive, that even very busy, important people in the ant research community are willing to take the time to look at someone else's samples to confirm ID's, or even ID them themselves.
ReplyDeleteBut academic collegiality, though supportive of the individual researcher or student, isn't enough to address the huge numbers of unidentified samples that many researchers and institutions have sitting and gathering dust. There is a lot of effort made to collect more and more samples in the field, but really understanding what's already been collected is somehow given a lesser priority. Thus, the taxonomy "bottleneck" some researchers have commented on.
What's interesting is that because (as is correctly noted above) straight taxonomy doesn't qualify one for a PhD, or for a teaching position at a university, there are few positions where someone who wants to focus on taxonomy can find steady employment. This is despite the fact that there is a lot of scientifically useful work to be done related to taxonomy, that academics, researchers, and students would all like to see done.
I have no idea what the answer is, but it's an interesting question.
What I meant by knowledge does not sell is and to answer your statement about being paid……. where are the greater incentives of career and health benefits? A full faculty position great – but they are so few and far between. You would pay someone to look at specimens, but in the grand scheme that is ephemeral. Myopia is rampant in academia. Majority in academia can’t step back and away from there own bullshit to see the reality. For the most part, there is little money in taxonomy. It is all about money and importance in regards to worldly matters. The good taxonomists are also good ecologists – they can link the two and provide significant knowledge that pertains to worldly matters. Let me ask a question - what would you think is more important to the state legislature, majority of faculty in a department, and/or the general public – a taxonomist studying some obscure ant, fly, or roach Genus - or a crop researcher studying apple-maggot resistance in apples?
ReplyDeleteThe term “hang’ is slang for - can one stick it out? Some are weak performers and their work indicates such.
Anonymous makes a good point. As an academic, the sad fact is that when people are so focused on their own little world, they lose sight of the very purpose of their research and teaching, which is to better the lives of the consumers who support it.
ReplyDeleteThe purpose of science is not necessarily to "better the lives of the consumers who support it" - at least not directly. How did flying to the moon improve the life of consumers?
ReplyDeleteOtherwise I mostly agree with anonymous1. As a taxonomist (or scientist) you have to "sell" your work and demonstrate how it may be useful somehow, someday to your peers (and not to the consumers). One way could be to combine taxonomy with ecology but this is not the only way to go.
cheers.