- Email: [email protected]
Some thoughts on parasitology, systematics, biodiversity and old-fashioned technologies
International Journal for Parasitology 30 (2000) 241±243
www.elsevier.nl/locate/ijpara
Bancroft-Mackerras Oration
Some thoughts on parasitology, systematics, biodiversity and oldfashioned technologies Ross H. Andrews* Environmental Biology Department, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia Received 26 September 1999; received in revised form 15 November 1999; accepted 15 November 1999
This is indeed an honour, a rather unexpected one at that. I feel uncomfortable standing here having been awarded the Bancroft±Makerras Medal by the Australian Society for Parasitology, humbled in the context of the outstanding people who have previously been awarded this most prestigious honour, and apprehensive because I prefer to be in the background rather than in the spotlight. I have previously stated my personal and professional philosophy (i.e. teamwork is the thing that counts) and without compromise I accept this award, which ®rstly allows me to address the ASP, particularly, the younger members aspiring to have careers in this fascinating discipline of science and secondly it provides me with the vehicle to acknowledge and thank the people who made this possibleÐthe team. I prefer to think of this as an epistle to the faithful rather than an oration to the masses. I am not going to discuss speci®c aspects of my research program. Rather, I would like to share some thoughts with you on parasitology, systematics, biodiversity and old-fashioned technologies. A good place to start is to revisit some of the points I raised as President of the ASP in the Presidential Forum with guests Graham Mitchell and Sir Gustav Nossal. It is clear to me, particularly in my position on the Australian Research Council that we, as parasitologists, have ignored some of the new but basic directions in the way that science is being structured internationally and we are certainly not learning from international experience. We must understand and accept that the boundaries we have constructed to sep* Fax: +61-8-83034364. E-mail address: [email protected] (R.H. Andrews).
arate disciplines of science are in fact ®gments of our imagination [1]. It is sad to say, however, that in too many cases these fantasies (i.e. arti®cial boundaries) have become dogma in academic, administrative and funding contexts. I believe that we have the skills in place to overcome these arti®cial boundaries and create an exciting opportunity to further our knowledge of parasitology by combining theoretical as well as research disciplines. To do this eectively, however, we must cooperate/collaborate with each other and with people in other scienti®c disciplines [1]. Sadly this is a rare occurrence. As I have stated previously (and this does not just apply to parasitology but to all science disciplines), ``In order to achieve this eectively we need to overcome the type of childish territorial behaviour that has become increasingly apparent within our ranks due to ever decreasing funding and lack of stability. This is a sel®sh attempt to monopolise research areas by individuals or research groups under the false assumption that they will gain a competitive funding edge.''[1] Whilst attempting to ride the razor's edge to obtain funds from granting agencies to maintain the continuity and focus of my research program and my survival, there have been many times where adopting this type of regressive childish territorial behaviour would have provided me with much satisfaction, albeit short-term. The following advice from anonymous referees of a selection of grant applications may prove bene®cial, particularly in the light of recent applications to funding bodies, assessments that we have all received and rejoinders that we have had to write. One referee pointed out that the recent Earth Summit in Rio, and the Australian Government's policy on the environment, conservation and biodiversity, state
0020-7519/00/$20.00 7 2000 Australian Society for Parasitology Inc. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 0 2 0 - 7 5 1 9 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0 3 - 5
242
R.H. Andrews / International Journal for Parasitology 30 (2000) 241±243
that to make eective decisions on the future management of ecosystems it is not necessary to determine and de®ne the number of discreet taxa that make up the communities within these ecosystems. I am confused. I have always been under the impression that this line of thinking is false. If we do not know the number and types of species present and how they interact with each other and their environment (i.e. their basic ecology) how can we understand biodiversity and the processes that drive it and manage the environment eectively, let alone ensure sound conservation practices? The outcomes of the Rio Summit and the Australian Government's position on such issues are the result of a political process. To use that as a criticism of a knowledge and perspective of science and its processes is absolutely ridiculous. Another referee suggested that whereas correct taxonomy is important and critical, it is not to be equated with systematics and that a phylogenetic approach should be adopted as it is scienti®cally sound, rather than an approach based on systematics which is incorrect and hence has no scienti®c merit. Have we been doing it wrong? I have always considered that systematics is the study of the kinds and diversity of organisms and their relationships, that is the scienti®c discipline of systematics derived from the Latinised Greek word systema. Further, I thought that the discipline comprised three interrelated components; ``taxonomy (from the Greek words taxis = arrangement and nomos = law), the theory and practice of classifying organisms into taxa within a hierarchy''[2], a second component is ``nomenclature (from the Latin words nomen = name and calare = to call), a structured and specialised process whereby labels (i.e. scienti®c names) are produced for all taxa at all hierarchical levels to provide a common ground in which biologists can communicate about speci®c taxa''[2], and the third component phylogeny (from the Greek words Phyle = tribe and Genesis = act of being born), the study of evolutionary history or relationships of organisms [2]. I believe that I am not wrong. Furthermore, I suggest to you that when it comes to interpreting Latinised Greek and Greek itself (albeit at times ancient) an Australianised Greek like myself has some advantage! By now there are probably some people wondering if the oering of this award to me is like the Trojans accepting the wooden horse. The adage, even today, is still just as relevant; ``beware of Greeks bearing gifts''. When we ask `which method or technique do we use to solve a problem', the obvious answer is `the best method'. But what do we understand by the concept of a ``best'' or ``most appropriate'' solution to a scienti®c problem? Is the ``best'' method that which solves a problem fastest? What about the cost of the experiment? If there were ®ve ways to solve a problem, but with varying degrees of technical diculty and cost,
would a cost-bene®t analysis reveal the ``best'' method? For some time I have been bewildered by derogatory comments from referees and colleagues concerning genetic analyses using the ``old'' technique of allozyme electrophoresis, when they believe contemporary methods (e.g. DNA technology) will provide all the answers. Although the most common technique in my laboratory at this point in time is PCR (and therefore DNA analysis), there are some situations where I can get more quantitative data, faster using multilocus allozyme electrophoresis than with PCR. These days, allozyme analyses account only for a small part of my laboratory's activities, but it is a powerful technique, it produces hard data and I like doing it! There are many reasons why one would choose not to use this technique; for example it requires considerable experience and specialised equipment. The problems this method have caused me, however, are not due to technical diculties, or expense or personnel, but because the method is perceived by others to be `old fashioned'; I will not even consider discussing anything to do with the antiquated technique of microscopy! Being `old fashioned' is not a scienti®c criticism, it is a political criticism. I think each of us would describe the process of solving scienti®c problems as science. If we were accused of using a politician's rationale for solving scienti®c problems, we would probably feel insulted. As a person from the island of Ithaca experienced many years ago, I too ®nd myself succumbing to the lure of the sirens, calling me to do more PCR. Today, on the threshold of the year 2000, even something as fundamental as choosing a method requires awareness of the publishing world and the kind of work (should I say technique) that gets funded. The method of choice in one laboratory may not be the most appropriate in another laboratory. I put it to you, however, that there is a point at which research workers in each laboratory will always agree. Methods will be chosen that will make them look as though they are at the very cutting edge of research, hence increase their chances of funding. I was recently reminded of the death of parasitology at The University of Adelaide from its heydays in the 50s and 60s, when it could boast such talents as Madeline Angel, Alan Bird, Stan Edmonds, Buddy Rogers, Slim (Ian) Sommerville, Pat Thomas and Harry Wallace. How sad and short-sighted that all that expertise, experience and knowledge is now either lost or con®ned to libraries rather than residing in active departmental personnel. A crusty old microscopist colleague has fond memories of research in parasitology at The University of Adelaide during those heydays. Even though he spent a prolonged period in medical and veterinary pathology, he still maintained an interest in parasitology and has returned with a wealth of
R.H. Andrews / International Journal for Parasitology 30 (2000) 241±243
research expertise and knowledge of microscopy, which complements the other techniques used in my laboratory. My purpose in relating this to you is to suggest that to succeed in this business you must not be blinkered and dogmatic but be prepared to remain adaptable, even entrepreneurial. These are the attributes that funding bodies, your life-blood, are beginning to value. Indeed they expect nothing less. There is a simple message that I wish to deliver to you all, particularly to the younger members of this society, by way of these examples, previous statements and in accepting this award. Have faith in your ability, remain focused no matter what the circumstances and maintain open and honest communication. I started in a research career 26 years ago in a dark room. I used ¯uorescent paints to identify male and female ticks under red light so that I could observe and not disturb their mating behaviour. The most sophisticated items of equipment that I used were a pencil and a stopwatch, which indeed I mastered very well (scissors on the other hand I failed!). Since that time I have been fortunate to be able to continue my research on ticks. This has progressed to a jointly instigated (with Trevor Petney) international research program involving colleagues on all continents in the production of modern interactive keys for the identi®cation and characterisation of ticks. The ®rst project of these will be ``Ticks of Australia, South-east Asia and the Paci®c''. The light microscopy component of this project has received support from Olympus, Australia. I mention my research on ticks because it is only one facet of my research program on micro- and macroparasites, which for the past 26 years has been driven by the singularly focused underlying theme of accurate identi®cation and characterisation of parasites. In this context I take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank the people who make up the team and with whom I have had fun collaborating with for many years. It is an honour and a pleasure for me to accept this award on their behalf; the late Peter Boreham, Peter O'Donoghue, John Sprent and Lesley Warner in Queensland, Stuart Hazell and Alan Johnson in New South Wales, David Spratt in the ACT, Ian Beveridge, Peter Cameron, Neil Chilton, Robin Gasser
243
and Graham Mitchell in Victoria, Elvera Andrews, Amanda Auld, Heather Builth, Tony Clealand, Bruce Dixon, John Hood, Roman Markowsky, Paul Monis, Louise McDiarmid, Michelle Morris, Michael O'Callaghan, Joe Orbach, Vada Osborn, Tony Richardson, Grant Schiller, Bob Stevenson and Rhett Swanson in South Australia, Cheryl Claiborne, Jim Keirans, Jim Oliver, David Overstreet, Mat Pound and the late Roger Russell in the United States of America, Trevor Petney in Germany and also Australia, Rojchai Satrawaha in Thailand and Dave Cole from `across the ditch', New Zealand. For many years to come I trust that we will still enjoy attempting to provide answers to the many problems parasites challenge us with, and that we sustain a passion to increase our knowledge of their interactions with their hosts and with their environment. It would be out of context if I did not close this epistle with some redundancy; ``as I have said many times before, no matter what happens or how dicult things become always maintain a sense of humour''
Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following funding bodies who have supported my research program; Australian Research Council, Australian Dental Research Foundation, Channel 7 and Channel 10 Children's Medical Research Foundation of SA, Clive and Vera Ramaciotti Foundation, The Faculty of Medicine (University of Adelaide), National Institutes of Health (USA), Sir Mark Mitchell Research Foundation, and the Wildlife Fund of SA.
References [1] Andrews RH. Will parasites outlive parasitologists? Int J Parasitol 1999;29:830±8. [2] Andrews RH, Chilton NB. Multilocus enzyme electrophoresis: a valuable technique for providing answers to problems in parasite systematics. Int J Parasitol 1999;29:213±53.
www.elsevier.nl/locate/ijpara
Bancroft-Mackerras Oration
Some thoughts on parasitology, systematics, biodiversity and oldfashioned technologies Ross H. Andrews* Environmental Biology Department, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia 5005, Australia Received 26 September 1999; received in revised form 15 November 1999; accepted 15 November 1999
This is indeed an honour, a rather unexpected one at that. I feel uncomfortable standing here having been awarded the Bancroft±Makerras Medal by the Australian Society for Parasitology, humbled in the context of the outstanding people who have previously been awarded this most prestigious honour, and apprehensive because I prefer to be in the background rather than in the spotlight. I have previously stated my personal and professional philosophy (i.e. teamwork is the thing that counts) and without compromise I accept this award, which ®rstly allows me to address the ASP, particularly, the younger members aspiring to have careers in this fascinating discipline of science and secondly it provides me with the vehicle to acknowledge and thank the people who made this possibleÐthe team. I prefer to think of this as an epistle to the faithful rather than an oration to the masses. I am not going to discuss speci®c aspects of my research program. Rather, I would like to share some thoughts with you on parasitology, systematics, biodiversity and old-fashioned technologies. A good place to start is to revisit some of the points I raised as President of the ASP in the Presidential Forum with guests Graham Mitchell and Sir Gustav Nossal. It is clear to me, particularly in my position on the Australian Research Council that we, as parasitologists, have ignored some of the new but basic directions in the way that science is being structured internationally and we are certainly not learning from international experience. We must understand and accept that the boundaries we have constructed to sep* Fax: +61-8-83034364. E-mail address: [email protected] (R.H. Andrews).
arate disciplines of science are in fact ®gments of our imagination [1]. It is sad to say, however, that in too many cases these fantasies (i.e. arti®cial boundaries) have become dogma in academic, administrative and funding contexts. I believe that we have the skills in place to overcome these arti®cial boundaries and create an exciting opportunity to further our knowledge of parasitology by combining theoretical as well as research disciplines. To do this eectively, however, we must cooperate/collaborate with each other and with people in other scienti®c disciplines [1]. Sadly this is a rare occurrence. As I have stated previously (and this does not just apply to parasitology but to all science disciplines), ``In order to achieve this eectively we need to overcome the type of childish territorial behaviour that has become increasingly apparent within our ranks due to ever decreasing funding and lack of stability. This is a sel®sh attempt to monopolise research areas by individuals or research groups under the false assumption that they will gain a competitive funding edge.''[1] Whilst attempting to ride the razor's edge to obtain funds from granting agencies to maintain the continuity and focus of my research program and my survival, there have been many times where adopting this type of regressive childish territorial behaviour would have provided me with much satisfaction, albeit short-term. The following advice from anonymous referees of a selection of grant applications may prove bene®cial, particularly in the light of recent applications to funding bodies, assessments that we have all received and rejoinders that we have had to write. One referee pointed out that the recent Earth Summit in Rio, and the Australian Government's policy on the environment, conservation and biodiversity, state
0020-7519/00/$20.00 7 2000 Australian Society for Parasitology Inc. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: S 0 0 2 0 - 7 5 1 9 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 0 3 - 5
242
R.H. Andrews / International Journal for Parasitology 30 (2000) 241±243
that to make eective decisions on the future management of ecosystems it is not necessary to determine and de®ne the number of discreet taxa that make up the communities within these ecosystems. I am confused. I have always been under the impression that this line of thinking is false. If we do not know the number and types of species present and how they interact with each other and their environment (i.e. their basic ecology) how can we understand biodiversity and the processes that drive it and manage the environment eectively, let alone ensure sound conservation practices? The outcomes of the Rio Summit and the Australian Government's position on such issues are the result of a political process. To use that as a criticism of a knowledge and perspective of science and its processes is absolutely ridiculous. Another referee suggested that whereas correct taxonomy is important and critical, it is not to be equated with systematics and that a phylogenetic approach should be adopted as it is scienti®cally sound, rather than an approach based on systematics which is incorrect and hence has no scienti®c merit. Have we been doing it wrong? I have always considered that systematics is the study of the kinds and diversity of organisms and their relationships, that is the scienti®c discipline of systematics derived from the Latinised Greek word systema. Further, I thought that the discipline comprised three interrelated components; ``taxonomy (from the Greek words taxis = arrangement and nomos = law), the theory and practice of classifying organisms into taxa within a hierarchy''[2], a second component is ``nomenclature (from the Latin words nomen = name and calare = to call), a structured and specialised process whereby labels (i.e. scienti®c names) are produced for all taxa at all hierarchical levels to provide a common ground in which biologists can communicate about speci®c taxa''[2], and the third component phylogeny (from the Greek words Phyle = tribe and Genesis = act of being born), the study of evolutionary history or relationships of organisms [2]. I believe that I am not wrong. Furthermore, I suggest to you that when it comes to interpreting Latinised Greek and Greek itself (albeit at times ancient) an Australianised Greek like myself has some advantage! By now there are probably some people wondering if the oering of this award to me is like the Trojans accepting the wooden horse. The adage, even today, is still just as relevant; ``beware of Greeks bearing gifts''. When we ask `which method or technique do we use to solve a problem', the obvious answer is `the best method'. But what do we understand by the concept of a ``best'' or ``most appropriate'' solution to a scienti®c problem? Is the ``best'' method that which solves a problem fastest? What about the cost of the experiment? If there were ®ve ways to solve a problem, but with varying degrees of technical diculty and cost,
would a cost-bene®t analysis reveal the ``best'' method? For some time I have been bewildered by derogatory comments from referees and colleagues concerning genetic analyses using the ``old'' technique of allozyme electrophoresis, when they believe contemporary methods (e.g. DNA technology) will provide all the answers. Although the most common technique in my laboratory at this point in time is PCR (and therefore DNA analysis), there are some situations where I can get more quantitative data, faster using multilocus allozyme electrophoresis than with PCR. These days, allozyme analyses account only for a small part of my laboratory's activities, but it is a powerful technique, it produces hard data and I like doing it! There are many reasons why one would choose not to use this technique; for example it requires considerable experience and specialised equipment. The problems this method have caused me, however, are not due to technical diculties, or expense or personnel, but because the method is perceived by others to be `old fashioned'; I will not even consider discussing anything to do with the antiquated technique of microscopy! Being `old fashioned' is not a scienti®c criticism, it is a political criticism. I think each of us would describe the process of solving scienti®c problems as science. If we were accused of using a politician's rationale for solving scienti®c problems, we would probably feel insulted. As a person from the island of Ithaca experienced many years ago, I too ®nd myself succumbing to the lure of the sirens, calling me to do more PCR. Today, on the threshold of the year 2000, even something as fundamental as choosing a method requires awareness of the publishing world and the kind of work (should I say technique) that gets funded. The method of choice in one laboratory may not be the most appropriate in another laboratory. I put it to you, however, that there is a point at which research workers in each laboratory will always agree. Methods will be chosen that will make them look as though they are at the very cutting edge of research, hence increase their chances of funding. I was recently reminded of the death of parasitology at The University of Adelaide from its heydays in the 50s and 60s, when it could boast such talents as Madeline Angel, Alan Bird, Stan Edmonds, Buddy Rogers, Slim (Ian) Sommerville, Pat Thomas and Harry Wallace. How sad and short-sighted that all that expertise, experience and knowledge is now either lost or con®ned to libraries rather than residing in active departmental personnel. A crusty old microscopist colleague has fond memories of research in parasitology at The University of Adelaide during those heydays. Even though he spent a prolonged period in medical and veterinary pathology, he still maintained an interest in parasitology and has returned with a wealth of
R.H. Andrews / International Journal for Parasitology 30 (2000) 241±243
research expertise and knowledge of microscopy, which complements the other techniques used in my laboratory. My purpose in relating this to you is to suggest that to succeed in this business you must not be blinkered and dogmatic but be prepared to remain adaptable, even entrepreneurial. These are the attributes that funding bodies, your life-blood, are beginning to value. Indeed they expect nothing less. There is a simple message that I wish to deliver to you all, particularly to the younger members of this society, by way of these examples, previous statements and in accepting this award. Have faith in your ability, remain focused no matter what the circumstances and maintain open and honest communication. I started in a research career 26 years ago in a dark room. I used ¯uorescent paints to identify male and female ticks under red light so that I could observe and not disturb their mating behaviour. The most sophisticated items of equipment that I used were a pencil and a stopwatch, which indeed I mastered very well (scissors on the other hand I failed!). Since that time I have been fortunate to be able to continue my research on ticks. This has progressed to a jointly instigated (with Trevor Petney) international research program involving colleagues on all continents in the production of modern interactive keys for the identi®cation and characterisation of ticks. The ®rst project of these will be ``Ticks of Australia, South-east Asia and the Paci®c''. The light microscopy component of this project has received support from Olympus, Australia. I mention my research on ticks because it is only one facet of my research program on micro- and macroparasites, which for the past 26 years has been driven by the singularly focused underlying theme of accurate identi®cation and characterisation of parasites. In this context I take this opportunity to acknowledge and thank the people who make up the team and with whom I have had fun collaborating with for many years. It is an honour and a pleasure for me to accept this award on their behalf; the late Peter Boreham, Peter O'Donoghue, John Sprent and Lesley Warner in Queensland, Stuart Hazell and Alan Johnson in New South Wales, David Spratt in the ACT, Ian Beveridge, Peter Cameron, Neil Chilton, Robin Gasser
243
and Graham Mitchell in Victoria, Elvera Andrews, Amanda Auld, Heather Builth, Tony Clealand, Bruce Dixon, John Hood, Roman Markowsky, Paul Monis, Louise McDiarmid, Michelle Morris, Michael O'Callaghan, Joe Orbach, Vada Osborn, Tony Richardson, Grant Schiller, Bob Stevenson and Rhett Swanson in South Australia, Cheryl Claiborne, Jim Keirans, Jim Oliver, David Overstreet, Mat Pound and the late Roger Russell in the United States of America, Trevor Petney in Germany and also Australia, Rojchai Satrawaha in Thailand and Dave Cole from `across the ditch', New Zealand. For many years to come I trust that we will still enjoy attempting to provide answers to the many problems parasites challenge us with, and that we sustain a passion to increase our knowledge of their interactions with their hosts and with their environment. It would be out of context if I did not close this epistle with some redundancy; ``as I have said many times before, no matter what happens or how dicult things become always maintain a sense of humour''
Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following funding bodies who have supported my research program; Australian Research Council, Australian Dental Research Foundation, Channel 7 and Channel 10 Children's Medical Research Foundation of SA, Clive and Vera Ramaciotti Foundation, The Faculty of Medicine (University of Adelaide), National Institutes of Health (USA), Sir Mark Mitchell Research Foundation, and the Wildlife Fund of SA.
References [1] Andrews RH. Will parasites outlive parasitologists? Int J Parasitol 1999;29:830±8. [2] Andrews RH, Chilton NB. Multilocus enzyme electrophoresis: a valuable technique for providing answers to problems in parasite systematics. Int J Parasitol 1999;29:213±53.