Discussion about the above could get quite political, which might not be a good idea here. Attempting to step aside from politics a little, I suggest that some multidisciplinary research be conducted that would take a broad view regarding the environmental, economic and social effects that this proposed development might have.
Realistically, though, everything has some interface with politics, and it does seem impossible to discuss the complexities of research regarding this topic without bringing politics into the picture. Perhaps the Moderators could provide some guidance regarding whether it would be appropriate to even discuss this here.
It is not about data purges, so perhaps it is off-topic anyway.
I wasnāt trying to be off topic obviously. I had mentioned the impact on parks and wild spaces as well as education earlier. I am sorry if you feel I have overstepped. As you say, most of these areas are connected, and loss of research will lead to loss of data. I was responding to other comments. I can, of course, spin the discussion of how to support parks and wild spaces into another thread, which I will consider doing now. I am glad someone is keeping such a close eye on what might not be relevant. I wouldnāt want the thread closed because of me.
Actually, it is myself, not you, who may have overstepped by bringing up the prospect of possible development. Thereās no problem at all with what you wrote. I will be happy to delete my post if the Moderators feel it best to do that.
Maybe this presents us with an opportunity to consider the boundaries of what is appropriate to discuss on this forum. Certainly, since iNaturalist is all about collecting and making available data on observations, the topic of data purges is an appropriate one. Since public lands are where much such data is collected, I think discussing access to public lands is also fitting for this forum.
However, I then stretched the focus still further to the topic of development of public lands, which would of course close such lands to certain forms of study. But I think this brings the topic of development to the forefront at the expense of the topic of the data itself, which has us straying into a subject that is not central to what is done here.
Delving too much into politics might put iNaturalist at risk by having it viewed as an advocacy effort, so I think itās prudent to consider the bounds regarding what is appropriate for discussion. The Moderators and staff might need to weigh in on this.
I would pay attention to what happens with websites under the Interior Department, particularly the Fish & Wildlife Service. I know a number of those folks and Iāll likely hear if they are told to scrub any of their public data.
Edit: Geological Survey and its Biological Resources Division is another to watch. The division, or discipline as itās called now, was formerly a part of Fish & Wildlife. I worked for them during their transition in the early-mid 1990s when it was at first the National Biological Survey, then shortly thereafter the National Biological Service (survey sounded too invasive to some politicians), then was sunk into a division of the Geological Survey. I worked under four different agency names in a few years without ever changing my job. That was all very political, since it involved federally-conducted research on fauna and flora and some donāt like that.
Iām honestly not sure how much more can really be said here. The original question is asking if thereās concern about public biodiversity data being lost or hidden due to recent and ongoing actions by the US government. But I donāt know how constructive of a conversation there is to be had without things getting really political and difficult to moderate.
People can list sites or organizations that may be potentially at risk, like @jnstuart just did, and maybe list places where those data could be archived, like the wayback machine. I wouldnāt want to get into advocacy of specific groups, but there are plenty that are easy to find and, as I said above, if youāre a US citizen you should call your elected representatives and express your thoughts.
I suppose. I donāt think, despite the significance of the topic, we can proceed much further, under the circumstances. iNat is a good site and I wouldnāt want anything to threaten it. There are other places where we can fully express our ideas to people who may be able to act on our concerns. I do thank the moderators for allowing the conversation to continue as long as possible, and I close with the hope that things will get better.
It is good to stay hopeful. However, I remember on one platform, when the COVID pandemic had only recently been declared, I actually saw discussions where it seemed like peopleās main concern was about how to navigate travel restrictions: what if people from country X are prohibited from entering country Y, that sort of thing. Being concerned about that was possible because it was early in the pandemic and we had not yet seen how bad it would get.
Agreed, but I just donāt see how we can fully explore the possible ramifications here (especially when it was suggested iNat could suffer as a result), so I tried to end on a positive note. I am entirely capable of delivering an apocalyptic conclusion about many a serious situation (in fact close friends would expect it), but as we donāt know the outcome, perhaps I should have just said that, given the restrictions on the discussion (note I am off topic more than on in this thread), I am monitoring the events closely, staying fully informed, and am determined to do what I can to make things better. I did not mean to sound dismissiveāI just know I canāt tell you what I think or feel here.
As an outsider, I think this is a re-branding and re-phrasing excercise. If one has a grant pending to study insect wing adaptation to antropogenic climate change, better resubmit it as insect wing adaptation to climate variability.
I think iNaturalist is well set up to thrive under governments of different persuations, with clear and transparent goal of promoting engagement with nature and citizen science in particular. No political or ideological affiliation is needed, just honesty and polite manners communicating.
They just killed a report about to be published on a first-of-its-kind assessment of nature across the United States. The scientists involved are hoping to find a way to publish it anyway.
Iām pretty sure the word āclimateā is the critical thing about this that the government does not like. I would call it āinsect wing adaptation to local conditionsā so itās just about how insects adapt to their surroundings as life has been doing for thousands/billions of years, not mentioning climate in the title at all.
I donāt mean to offend ā truly ā but since you say yourself that you hadnāt heard of these data purges before now, it might be a good idea to catch up on the news. Things are much, much worse than you know.
Have to work a bit harder than mainstream media to find the news.
Comment was flagged. Post is closed.
The people who were interested have seen and read.
PS 15 clicked the [deleted now] link and 5 liked it. That is a visible 20 against one flagger.