[Zoobank-list] RE: [iczn-list] Zoogle versus ZooBank, ECat, Species2000, ITIS, uBio, etc.

[Richard Pyle]

Chris, et al.

I have not talked to Brian directly about this, so I cannot speak on his
behalf.  However, I do know some things that are not evident from the
Newsweek article, and that should be clarified:

1) The idea of "Zoogle" came about from the discussion among authors of the
recent ZooBank article in Nature (this may have happened before you were on
the CC list, Chris).  It is NOT an attempt to circumvent all of the
initiatives you list below, nor is it an attempt to re-invent any wheels.

2) With support from several of the principal ZooBank authors, I initiated a
dialog with Google to see if they would be able to support the development
of ZooBank -- either through financial support, or through collaboration
with Google programmers and data gurus (incidentally, the dialog with Google
would NEVER have come about without the help of Ryan Phelan, formerly of the
not-so-failed All Species effort -- but the idea came from the discussion
among ZooBank authors).

3) Most of the conversation with Google thus far has involved providing the
Google representative with a crash course in the bioinformatics landscape,
primarily involving GBIF, TDWG, ITIS, Species2000, Thompson/BIOSIS, uBio,
GenBank, DiGIR, BioCASE, ABCD, DarwinCore, TCS, and many other efforts
(e.g., Rod Page's very cool tools).

The important point, though, is that the subject line "Zoogle **versus**
ZooBank, ECat, Species2000, ITIS, uBio,etc." is a gross mischaracterization,
because there is no basis for the word "versus".  All of these efforts play
a particular role, and Google's role is to (in my mind, at least) bring to
the table its VAST web indexes so that biologists will have easier and more
effective access to biological information distributed around the web.
Perhaps they will also play a more direct role in helping to facilitate the
development of "our" initiatives (like ZooBank, etc.) -- but this remains to
be seen.

Brian Fisher was aware of these discussions with Google.  I do not know if
he had independent ideas about getting Google to work directly with him, or
if his  comments to the Newsweek reporter were taken out of context, or
what.  However, I do know that the word "Zoogle", as quoted in the article,
is the same "Zoogle" that began with the discussion among the ZooBank
authors (i.e., Brian does not claim to have coined the term). On this point,
at least, the error was the Newsweek reporter's -- not Brian's.

As to Doug Yanega's comment: "but you must also realize that if there were
no attempts by the CAS to broker a deal with Google, then there's no way
this "Zoogle" concept would appear in the story."

I do not believe that CAS is trying to independently broker any deal
directly with Google, because Stan Blum (Research Information Manager at
CAS, and major TDWG mover & shaker) is aware of the current Google/Zoogle
discussions, and I would be very surprised if there was a separate effort
for collaboration underway without me knowing about it.

Finally, I also want to say that I personally applaud Brian's creativity and
initiative to breathe a little life into a field that DESPERATELY needs life
breathed back into it.  Whether it's selling species names to wealthy
donors, or trying to generate enthusiasm for biodiversity from the corporate
world, as long as the science is sound (and Brian's credentials in this
regard are stellar, as far as I can tell), I say more power to him.  Yes, I
agree with Doug that there will be unanticiapted and/or undesirable
repercussions -- my reading of the Tarot cards is that the net effect will
end up being more positive than negative (in contrast to Doug's somewhat
more dire predictions; we both unblessed with the gift of omniscience).

Aloha,
Rich

Richard L. Pyle, PhD
Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences
  and Associate Zoologist in Ichthyology
Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum
1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817
Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252
email: deepreef at bishopmuseum.org
http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html



> -----Original Message-----
> From: iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org
> [mailto:iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org]On Behalf Of christian thompson
> Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 5:54 AM
> To: zoobank-list at afriherp.org; dyanega at ucr.edu
> Cc: iczn-list at afriherp.org
> Subject: [iczn-list] Zoogle versus ZooBank, ECat, Species2000, ITIS,
> uBio,etc.
>
>
> Colleagues:
>
> Selling names is nothing new. Over the last half dozen or so
> years, various groups have been doing or trying to do this.
>
> What is truly disappointing is a scientist / systematist is now
> trying to independently build what the community is trying to do
> together: Taking, in essence, a quick shot at Google billions for himself.
>
> To quote Newsweek: As for that Google ant, which Fisher named
> earlier this year, it's a bid for the search engine's attention.
> Fisher wants the company to partner with him in creating a
> database of all known animal life. The project's prospective
> name? "Zoogle."
>
> For years Species2000 has had as its goal what Brian Fisher
> declares he wants to do if Google will give him the money. Global
> Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) with its Electronic
> Catalog of Life is trying for the same; as it the Integrated
> Taxonomical Information System, Wood Hole is doing a great job in
> building a universal theasurus of names, and now recently
> declared in Nature is the International Commission on Zoological
> Nomenclature with its ZooBank. But in reality, the only
> organization with the ability and resources to do Zoological
> names is Thomson with the Zoological Record and for plants, Kew.
> However, all these groups are working together, sharing their
> names and resources. But accumulating million and half names is
> not an easy task even if you have billions.
>
> What has been the failure of Systematics and apparently continues
> to be is that systematists can't seem to work together like other
> scientists. And, hence, we fail to achieve large scale projects.
> So, now Brian continue with Zoogle. You would have thought those
> in San Francisco would have learnt after the failure of All
> Species project a few years ago.
>
> So, the community should be clear on Zoogle. Do not support it;
> tell the press it is not realistic. And if Google wants to
> support the gathering of names, then tell them to support people
> who work together, to support the cooperative international
> efforts being lead by the Global Biodiversity Information
> Facility; GBIF needs all the financial help it can get. And we do
> not need another failure like ALL Species.
>
> Zoogle is a nice name, but the community does not need it.
>
> Sorry, Brian ...
>
>
>
> F. Christian Thompson
> Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA
> c/o Smithsonian Institution
> MRC-0169 NHB
> PO Box 37012
> Washington, DC 20013-7012
> (202) 382-1800 voice
> (202) 786-9422 FAX
> cthompso at sel.barc.usda.gov e-mail
> www.diptera.org  web site
>
> _______________________________________________
> iczn-list mailing list
> iczn-list at afriherp.org
> http://list.afriherp.org/mailman/listinfo/iczn-list