Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I wonder how folks pronounce the IFQRG: International Forestry Quarantine Research Group (https://www.ippc.int/en/liason/organizations/ifqr/). Whatever else, they provide a good precedent for the use of “research group”.
Yes cats are not well known for herding instincts or collective decision making!
I have the following concerns about moving to a broader title such as the International Pest Risk Research Group:
1. There is a danger that by broadening our focus we will lose sight of our original objectives as set out in the Bioscience paper (Venette et al. 2010. Pest risk maps for invasive alien species: a roadmap for improvement. Bioscience 60: 349-362). This paper set out 10 recommendations and a road map for producing invasive alien species risk maps. We wrote that: âThe group of scientists who developed the recommendations above will endeavour to tackle some of these challengesâ. By writing this, havenât we set up an expectation that we will continue with our mission and that it should be clear in our title and objectives? These recommendations set out something tangible and possibly even achievable. I feel we have made some very good headway with all of these, as exemplified by the 10 or more articles in the risk mapping Neobiota edition in 2013 and the very recent publishing of the CABI book âPest Risk Modelling and Mapping for Invasive Alien Speciesâ that have led directly from our meetings. In August, it would be good to take stock of where we have got to on the road, which recommendations now need greater focus and whether we need new recommendations both to remotivate/stimulate those that have travelled along the road so far and also to attract new travellers.
2. Governments and international bodies already invest a significant amount of money, time and energy in undertaking pest risk analyses (PRAs) and enhancing PRA processes. Such activities are clearly also pest risk research. By broadening our name, we will be considered to be taking on such things too, potentially leading us away from or at least diluting the key activities on mapping, modelling and the communication of risk/uncertainty that brought us together in the first place.
3. Despite our current lack of constitution and cat-like approach to collective decision making, we have been remarkably successful in obtaining funds from governments and international bodies, such as the OECD, for our meetings. I think this has a lot to do with governments and international bodies readily appreciating the challenge of risk mapping/modelling and the value of supporting meetings that bring together the âbestâ risk mappers/modellers in the world to share thoughts, collaborate, identify and develop âbestâ practice. They may be less enthusiastic if we say/imply we are going to tackle all aspects of pest risk research. Although based on ISPM11, the methods used to conduct PRA vary between countries and there might be concerns that with a wider remit we might come up with conclusions/recommendations that could be perceived as running counter to some current national/international practice. It would also attract a different crowd of people who may feel relatively uncomfortable when exposed to modelling/mapping issues.
4. Although currently rather inactive, the change in title puts us closer to the International Advisory Group on Pest Risk Analysis whose aim is not only to help increase capacity in PRA internationally in line with the IPPC framework but also to contribute to the continued development of PRA. See: https://www.ippc.int/en/liason/organizations/internationaladvisorygrouppestriskanalysis/
5. By keeping the spatial/modelling aspects of our group up in lights, are we losing potential recruits to the cause? I donât believe we have ever turned anyone way since part of our role is to encourage greater spatialisation of all types of pest risk models.My vote is therefore not for radical change. I agree âResearch Groupâ is better than âWorkgroupâ. I agree that âMappingâ on its own can be considered as overly simplifying what we are about. I therefore favour including both âmodelling and mappingâ since one comes before the other. I therefore suggest:
International Pest Risk Modelling and Mapping Research Group (IPRMMRG).
Ok, its still clunky, but following I-PeRG, it could be pronounced as âi-PeRMaMeRGâ!
