Break-out Discussion Groups

Breakout discussion groups at the e-Biosphere09 conference addressed the concerns of persons interested in a range of topics from marine biodiversity informatics to training future biodiversity informaticists (see list to the right).

A convener and a rapporteur were selected for each group from among those who registered to attend it. All groups were asked to address, from the point of view of their topic area, the following questions:

• What do we want the future of biodiversity informatics to look like with regard to [area of interest of the breakout group], and what is the roadmap to get there?
• What are [people with this interest area] currently not able to do that they would like to be able to do with the help of biodiversity informatics?

In addition, some groups also chose to address the question “How should Biodiversity Informatics develop over the next 5-10 years to provide maximum value to and impact on research and society?” (which may have been formulated differently in different groups).

Each group had unique answers that were related to the area of interest being addressed. However, there were several common themes that emerged.

1. The conference attendees made it known though the breakout discussions that it is highly desirable to develop interoperability and integration across many levels of biological organization and many information domains, with better metadata, including indications of fitness for use. To do this, and to make use of the data that would come available, new and better tools for integration, data mining, presentation, planning, decision-making, and automated geo-referencing and metadata generation need to be developed.

2. Free and open availability of MORE data and information with greater variety of data types, greater quantity, greater quality were also of major concern. The data and information under discussion included published papers, which it was felt should be made entirely accessible and searchable including the data, metadata & appendices (which often contain the bulk of the useful data). To accomplish this, the conferees indicated that

• Project funding should be conditional on the presence of a data management plan & open access to the resulting (high quality, properly attributed) data; and
• Data publication needs to be a community expectation (mandatory for publication, GenBank model).

However, they also said that some new rules are needed for guarding quality and encouraging good behavior, which includes sharing data quickly after its generation, giving attribution when using data obtained from others via the internet, and mutual respect between discipline scientists and the information and computer scientists involved in the informatics arena.

3. Further, new web-based techniques should be used to broaden interactions among disciplines by

• Building social communities focused on citizen science activities
• Creating a (market) place where demand (science) and capacity (the public) can meet, make coalitions, establish priorities, etc.
• Establishing dialogue among different communities, and with users
• Constructing a framework for linking
  • local initiatives into a global biodiversity community
  • biodiversity with other kinds of user communities

4. Informatics should be promoted among professionals among professionals and the public by

• Developing a set of global “benefits-of-use-of-informatics” cases, and
• Leveraging established groups such as GBIF, Conservation Commons, Encyclopedia of Life, to build awareness of and access to data, information, and tools.

Specific desires and recommendations of the breakout groups are given in the reports from the 10 groups, and summarized in the PowerPoint presentation used in the plenary session on the day following the breakout session.