A separate article by Julia Nunn reports on the Review Meeting of the Conchological Society that took place on 11th November 2006. One of the items discussed at this meeting was the ‘data policy’ this Society should adopt. This article provides an explanation of a data policy, why the Society needs one and outlines the policy the Society has adopted.
What is a data policy?
A data policy is essentially a statement of what the data holder (in this case the Society) intends to do with the data it holds. It is particularly important for organisations like the Conchological Society where the data are provided by a range of individuals and organisations (many of them members of the Society). It is obviously important that those providing data are clear about what the Society intends to do with those data and are happy with that arrangement.
Why are biological data important?
Biological records collected by volunteers have formed a critical plank of conservation over the last thirty years. The data have been used to provide basic information on the geographic range of species, as well as an indication of their relative rarity. Distributions and categories of rarity help to provide a context to decisions involving species, for example identifying those which are under threat and require protection. The data also assist with local planning both by providing a list of species that occur in a particular area and also by highlighting such factors as to whether a particular species is near its biogeographical boundary. More recently, attempts have been made to relate species distributions to the physical environment to allow prediction of where else a species might be expected to occur. Moreover we can begin to assess changes in species abundance and attempt to relate these changes to potential causes. Such observations can be used to influence policy to help conserve biodiversity.
Isn’t everyone very open with their data?
Given the potential benefits to nature conservation, it might be expected that holders of biodiversity data would be relatively open about access to, and the use of, the data, but historically the picture has been quite different. Many data holders, having spent large amounts of their own time collating their datasets, have been reluctant to allow very open access to them. This has been due to all sorts of factors including:
- a desire to publish their data first – the data owner may intend to publish an atlas and feel that allowing free access to the data may detract from the impact of the atlas once published;
- fear over loss of control of the data - a feeling that the data are not really theirs any more once they are more widely released;
- concerns over the data being misused – this could include putting forward a view that the data owner does not agree with, or even using the data maliciously to damage the environment (e.g. through collecting rarities);
- concerned about others making financial gain from the data – in particular if the data can be accessed freely then consultants may use that data when providing advice that they have been paid to create;
- a desire to make financial gain from the data – this is particularly true of local record centres that rely on financial income from services provided using the data. If the data were more freely available the monopoly held by the record centres would not exist.
What holdings does the Society have?
Currently the society holds approximately 95,000 records of marine species in its computer database and thousands of records of non-marine species. Many more are still on paper or cards and there is a lot of work to do (both for marine and non-marine records) to get them all digitised.
What policy has the Society adopted?
Prior to the Review meeting last November, the question facing the Society was what to do with the data we hold. Should we be very open with it or more guarded? Should we allow consultants to have access to it? If we tell people where things are, is there not a risk they would go and collect them? These and other issues were debated at the meeting, and at the end of the debate, Council felt there was greater merit in making data freely available and consequently agreed to a very open access policy. Specifically, that anyone should have full access to the data the Society holds, with a few key exceptions. The exceptions are those species that are conspicuous by virture of their size and vulnerable to unscrupulous collection, such as the Freshwater pearl mussel and the Roman snail. The policy is outlined below.
POLICY ON RELEASE OF DATA HELD BY THE CONCHOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF GB & IRELAND
This policy refers to the release of data in any form held by the Conchological Society of GB & Ireland, referred to herein as The Society, acting as custodian of that data on behalf of its members and contributors.
All validated records of all species held by the Society will be made freely available, except species that are subject to commercial exploitation namely pearl mussels and Roman snails (Annex A listed species), where a judgement would be made by the relevant Society Recorder in conjunction with the Conservation and Recording Committee (CRC). The Society, or persons nominated to act on behalf of The Society, will not release personal data (such as addresses associated with recorders’ names) to enquirers without the express agreement of the originator of that data. Records will remain the property of the recorder at all times.
A copy of the data held by the Society is also held by the National Biodiversity Network (NBN) where the records are available on the internet to download via the NBN Gateway. All this data on the NBN Gateway will be placed at the full public access level, except for pearl mussels and Roman snails (Annex A listed species).
The Society reserves the right to withhold or impose restrictions on the release of certain data of a sensitive nature at any time if such action is deemed appropriate.
If a member of, or contributor to, The Society does not wish his/her records to be available for release to enquirers under the above policy, then he/she must inform the Society in writing. Any member or contributor of data to The Society may make a separate data release agreement with the Society.
Neither the owner, nor any other person involved in the Society gives any warrant or undertakings as to or accepts liability for the accuracy and currency of the data, whether published on the Society website or elsewhere or for any other purpose to which the data may be used.
This policy was agreed by the Council of the Society on 11th November 2006. Further enquiries concerning any Society records should, in the first instance, be directed to the appropriate Recorder.
Why is the Society being so open?
Council believes that on balance more good than harm will come from openness. You don’t have to look too far to see instances where key sites have been lost simply because those involved were not aware of the importance of the site. There are numerous examples of this. In an article describing the status of Truncatella subcylindrica in Ireland (Nunn et al 2005) Julia Nunn noted that the construction of a gravel track had destroyed the tidal regime of a lagoon and since then that species has not been recorded living from the site. There are instances of landowners trashing specific habitats because they fear the occurrence of the rarity associated with that habitat will restrict their usage of their land. While it is not guaranteed that greater access to the data would have affected the decision to construct the track, it certainly could not have done any harm. The Society feels that the only way of addressing this is through being much more open with the data we hold.
Does this mean some people could make money from our data?
Potentially yes. However, in most cases those making money are actually profiting from providing an interpretation of the data. If the mollusc data were not available they would simply proceed with the other data available to them, and the risk is that the molluscan aspects of the case would be omitted from the advice given.
What about people deliberately collecting species – aren’t we making it too easy?
Perhaps this is true, but how big is the risk? There are a few species where people may use the data with a view to actually seeking them out, but the vast majority are either very cryptic or relatively common. That said, there are some that genuinely are at risk (specifically the Freshwater pearl mussel and the Roman snail) and the Society with be much more guarded with records of these.
What happens next?
Julia Nunn will be contacting as many as possible of those contributors who have provided data to the Society, to notify them directly of the data policy and what it means. If you are unhappy with the policy, then you can opt to have your records removed from the Society’s main holding, or to make your own personal arrangement with the Society.
It is hoped that the foregoing has helped to clarify the Society’s data policy and the reasons for it. It is important that the Conchological Society should be seen to be cooperative and forward-looking in its approach to data collection and dissemination in order to further the aims of Conservation and Biodiversity studies. In the future, new providers of data to the Society’s recording schemes will be routinely notified of the policy and invited to give permission for unrestricted dissemination of their records.
References
Nunn JD, Smith SM, Anderson R (2005) Status of Truncatella subcylindrica (Linnaeus, 1797) in Ireland. Journal of Conchology 38: 599-601