Norman F. Johnson - 10 June, 1999
Re: Cost of ATBI
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 1999 09:28:45 -0400
From: "Norman F. Johnson"
To: John Pickering
Subject: Re: Cost of ATBI
Dear John,
You asked us to respond to this matter, so I will do so. I don't mind
if you forward or post this e-mail as long as all comments are included.
You seem to have unintentionally or purposely confounded several issues
here. First, you wrote to Keith:
> No team decision has been taken regarding our strategic plan or budget, so
> I am hardly breaking ranks.
This is absolutely incorrect. The Board of Discover Life in America
decided that we should NOT throw around budget estimates precisely
because we have not yet reached the stage where we can do so with any
confidence. We specifically agreed that questions about the total cost
of an ATBI could not be answered directly until we have gone through the
strategic planning process.
> My recollection of the Board's response to my
> $25M+ per year estimate for the ATBI was that we may not be able to raise
> that amount, not that it was an unreasonable estimate to fund the taxonomy
> that we need.
You recollect incorrectly. The Board did think that $25M+ is a totally
unreasonable number, for both scientific, fiscal, and morale reasons.
You continue to misquote me:
> If we estimate that it will
> take 1,000 taxonomists to clean up the names of 100,000 species, something
> that Norm, Mike, and I feel is a reasonable estimate, then we need to plan
> to fund that many.
In that phone conversation, you asked me how many species a single
taxonomist could be responsible for. I told you that the number would
vary greatly, depending upon the taxon and the taxonomist. You
suggested 100. I said that that was a starting point. I did not say it
was a reasonable estimate, and I do not endorse the notion that the ATBI
will therefore require the efforts of 1,000 taxonomists.
You insist that taxonomists will require the following in order to
participate:
> I think that $25K per year is a reasonable amount to
> fund a graduate student, travel, and minimal supplies, though I admit that
> you might be able to low-ball it and get some taxonomists to work for $15K
> per year.
As far as I can tell, this estimate is based only on anecdotal comments.
More importantly, your comment
> The taxonomists that I know
> are not willing to commit to a project of such limited scope. They can
> each get more money working elsewhere. Most taxonomists are looking for
> funding and not to volunteer in the Smokies.
misses the point entirely. You were much closer to the truth at the
first planning meeting in Gatlinburg in December, 1997, i.e., that the
project will only succeed if we can discover ways to find convergence in
the scientific and personal agendas of all the people involved. If a
scientist studies the systematics of South American ground beetles, then
no amount of money is going to entice that person to study the beetles
in the Smokies. Taxonomists, including me, are not scouting the field,
looking for the best financial incentive in order to determine our
research. Those research agendas are already set; I'm looking for
funding that will enable me to do the work that I already want to do.
The dollar amount that will persuade me to put that effort into this
project is very soft, and other issues, e.g., logistics, organization,
being part of a larger community effort, are of equal and critical
importance.
> This is a huge,
> magnificent undertaking with major payoffs to the Park, science, and
> society. We must stop hiding the real cost. Yes, we will have volunteers
> and contributions from scientists that are not in our budgeted cost, sweat
> equity in Dan's lingo, but I fear that underestimating or low-balling our
> budget at this point will result in the taxonomists, funding sources, and
> others not taking us seriously.
Apparently, you didn't take the response of the Board to your numbers in
the right spirit. As Keith noted, we have the potential to do just as
much harm to our efforts by citing unattainable budget figures that are
based on nothing more that random conversations with friends and
acquaintances.
> Once we agree on about what it will cost, then we can develop a strategic
> plan to raise the money. While I feel that we will ultimately need over
> $25M+ per year, I am quite aware that it will take 5 or more years to ramp
> up to that level.
You have misstated the point of the strategic planning proposed by the
Board. It is not to figure out how to raise the dollar figure you have
targeted, but rather to figure out first in some detail what needs to be
done and when; from that process we will have a much better idea of the
financing needed and a rational justification to present when seeking
those funds.
> I am copying this to our Board, taxonomy leaders, and others for general
> consumption, because it is of such a critical concern to our credibility
> and planning.
May I strenuously object to this? We will have no credibility if we
wash our dirty linen in public. That simply leads to a perception that
the project is disorganized and has no concept of what it wants to do
and how to go about doing it. The structure of Discover Life in America
is supposed to be designed to achieve our goals; let's use that
structure and not be copying everyone and their neighbor as we struggle
in the process.
> I hope you and they will respond and add better estimates to
> the debate. In particular, I hope the taxonomists as a 1,000 member
> community will tell us what it will cost for them to participate and
> succeed. I will post this and everyones response on our website.
>
> Let our strategic planning begin.
This is NOT the strategic planning process that we discussed in the
Board meeting in May. I suggest that we actually try to work as a team
to further the goals of DLIA rather than undercutting each other in
public and in the press.
--
Norman F. Johnson Johnson.2@osu.edu
Associate Professor Phone: 614-292-6595
Director, Ohio State Univ. Fax: 614-292-7774
Insect Collection