Content uploaded by Gusti Ngurah Mahardika
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gusti Ngurah Mahardika
Content may be subject to copyright.
Bull Mar Sci. 90(1):000–000. 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.5343/bms.2012.1108
1
Bulletin of Marine Science
© 2014 Rosenstiel School of Marine & Atmospheric Science of
the University of Miami
Advancing biodiversity research in developing
countries: the need for changing paradigms
Paul H Barber 1 *
Ma Carmen A Ablan-Lagman 2
Ambariyanto 3
Roberto GS Berlinck 4
Dita Cahyani 5
Eric D Crandall 6
Rachel Ravago-Gotanco 7
Marie Antonette Juinio-Meñez 7
IG Ngurah Mahardika 8
Kartik Shanker 9
Craig J Starger 10
Abdul Hamid A Toha 11, 12
Aji W Anggoro 5
Demian A Willette 1
ABS TR AC T.—e world is in the midst of a biodiversity
crisis, threatening essential goods and services on which
humanity depends. W hile there is an urgent need globally
for biodiversity research, growing obstacles are severely
limiting biodiversity research throughout the developing
world, particularly in Southeast Asia. Facilities, funding, and
expertise are often limited throughout this region, reducing
the capacity for local biodiversity research. Although western
scientists generally have more expertise and capacity,
international research has sometimes been exploitative
“parachute science,” creating a culture of suspicion and
mistrust. ese issues, combined with misplaced fears of
biopiracy, have resulted in severe roadblocks to biodiversity
research in the very countries that need it the most. Here, we
present an overv iew of challenges to biod iversity research and
case studies that provide productive models for advancing
biodiversity research in developing countries. Key to success
is integration of research and education, a model that
fosters sustained collaboration by focusing on the process of
conducting biodiversity research as well as research results.
is model simultaneously expands biodiversity research
capacity while building trust across national borders. It is
critical that developing countries enact policies that protect
their biod iversity capital wit hout shutti ng down international
and local biodiversity research that is essential to achieve
the long-term sustainability of biodiversity, promoting food
security and economic development.
1 Depar tment of Ecolog y and
Evolutionary Biology, University of
California, Los Angeles, California
90095.
2 Biolog y Department , De La Salle
Universi ty, Manila 1004, Philip pines.
3 Marine Science Department,
Faculty of Fi sheries and Mar ine
Science, Diponegoro University,
Kampus Tembalang, Semarang,
Indonesia.
4 Institut o de Química de São C arlos,
Universi dade de São Paulo, CP 780,
CEP 13560-970, São C arlos, SP, Brazil.
5 Indonesia Biodiversity Research
Center, Denp asar, Bali 80223,
Indonesia.
6 NOAA Southwest Fisheries Science
Center, Fisheries Ecology Division
& Institut e of Marine Scienc es, UC
Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California
95062.
7 Marine Sc ience Institute , University
of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon
City, 1101, Philip pines.
8 Fakultas Kedokteran Hewan,
Universitas Udayana, Denpasar Bali,
Indonesia.
9 Centre for Ecological Sciences,
Indian In stitute of Scienc e,
Bangalo re, India & Daksh in
Foundation, Bangalore, India.
10 Science & Technology Policy
Fellowshi ps, Center of Scien ce,
Policy & Soc iety Programs, A merican
Association for the Advancement of
Science , Washington, DC 20005 .
11 Fishery Department, State
Universi ty of Papua. Manokwari,
Papua Barat , 98314, Indonesia.
12 Biology Department, Brawijaya
Universi ty, Malang, East Java , 65145,
Indonesia.
* Corresponding author email:
<paulbarber@ucla.edu>.
Date Submitted: 2 January, 2013.
Date Accepted: 25 September, 2013.
Available Online: 3 December, 2013.
perspective
O A
Open access content
Fas t Track
➲
publication
Bulletin of Marine Science. Vol 90, No 1. 20142
e Earth is in the middle of a biodiversity crisis (Ehrlich and Pringle 2008,
Butchart et al. 2010, Rands et al. 2010, Stokstad 2010). Across varied environments
and taxonomic groups, contemporary extinction rates are 100–1000 times higher
than background rates from the fossil record (Pimm et al. 1995, Levin and Levin
2002, Barnosky et al. 2011); 12% of all bird species, 23% of mammals, 32% of amphib-
ians, 25% of conifers, and 52% of cycads are presently threatened with extinction
(Butchart et al. 2010), a problem augmented by climate change (omas et al. 2004).
However, while scientists warn of the 6th mass extinction (Wake and Vredenburg
2008, Barnosky et al. 2011), response to this crisis has been slow. Modern, tech-
nological societies are increasingly disengaged from nature (Pergams and Zaradic
2006, Pergams and Zaradic 2008), obfuscating the importance of biodiversity for
human civilization. It is common to hear politicians and business leaders argue that
society cannot afford the economic costs (e.g., higher prices or lost jobs) of protect-
ing biodiversity (e.g., Easterbrook 1994, Meyer 1997) despite the fact that the global
loss of biodiversity is identified as a major threat to human wellbeing (Diaz et al.
2006, Chivian and Bernstein 2008, Cardinale et al. 2012) and studies have shown
that conservation policies in developed countries often have no significant negative
economic impact (e.g., Meyer 1995, Freudenburg et al. 1998).
Humans are inextricably dependent on biodiversity for goods (food, materials,
pharmaceuticals) and services (carbon storage, nutrient cycling, crop pollination)
(Chivian and Bernstein 2008, Mace et al. 2010). e economy vs biodiversity argu-
ments have led economists and conservationists to apply economic models to cap-
ture the value of biodiversity goods and services (NRC 2005, Alho 2008) and these
values can be remarkably large. For example, Gallai et al. (2009) estimated animal
pollinators are worth $201 billion per year, or nearly 10% of the annual global value of
all agricultural human food production. Similarly, marine biodiversity in the United
Kingdom was valued at $831 million per year in food production, $19 billion per
year in recreational activities, and $13.7 billion per year in regulation of atmospheric
gases (Gallai et al. 2009), highlighting the value of intact ecosystems.
While some question economic valuation as a biodiversity conservation tool
(Shackleton 2001), biodiversity loss has real economic consequences. For example,
the collapse and subsequent moratorium of Labrador/Newfoundland groundfish
fisheries resulted in the loss of 40,000 fisheries jobs plus additional job losses in relat-
ed economic sectors (Dolan et al. 2005). us, although there are ethical arguments
for biodiversity conservation, the loss of ecosystem goods and services associated
with biodiversity loss is becoming a major social and economic concern (Hooper et
al. 2005).
Biodiversity is disproportionately distributed in tropical developing countries
(Myers et al. 2000) and these regions have some of the highest valued ecosystems on a
per unit area basis (Turner et al. 2012). erefore, as biodiversity is lost, the countries
that can afford it the least stand to lose the most (McMichael et al. 2008). Southeast
Asia is a region of particular concern for biodiversity loss. is region is home to the
most diverse marine environments in the world (Roberts et al. 2002, Bellwood and
Meyer 2009) and has many terrestrial biodiversity hotpots as well (Myers et al. 2000).
Models indicate that Southeast Asia has some of the highest potential and realized
ecosystem service values, and highest essential ecosystem services to poor commu-
nities in the world (Turner et al. 2012). e pronounced declines and threats to ma-
rine (Burke et al. 2011) and terrestrial (Sodhi et al. 2004, Normile 2010) communities
Barber et al.: Advancing biodiversity research 3
in this region thus not only represents a biodiversity crisis for Southeast Asia, but
also a potential economic crisis in a region seeking economic development.
T C B D C
e Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) was signed in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil,
in 1992 in recognition of the importance of biodiversity to human health and eco-
nomic development. Major goals of this international treaty included the conserva-
tion and sustainable use of biodiversity and the fair and equitable sharing of the
benefits that developing and developed countries derive from biodiversity resources.
e CBD elevated the visibility of biodiversity and its value to society; however, much
of the perceived value of biodiversity focused on “green gold” and the pharmaceuti-
cal potential of natural products. An estimated 47% of pharmaceuticals have been
derived from natural products (Newman and Cragg 2007, 2010, Cragg et al. 2012).
As such, many believed that biodiscovery could provide a strong financial incentive
for biodiversity conservation (Shyamsundar and Lanier 1994), and many develop-
ing countries enacted legislation to protect their biodiversity resources for econom-
ic development. Unfortunately, these economic benefits are not always realized
(Shackleton 2001); local stakeholders often received no benefits from benefit-sharing
agreements (Prathapan and Rajan 2011) and pharmaceutical companies complained
that bureaucratic obstacles prevent successful commercialization of products
(Dalton 2004). For example, the Merck-INBio partnership that was designed to fund
biodiversity conservation in Costa Rica by granting Merck biodiscovery rights was
hailed as a innovative model for advancing economic development, drug discovery,
and biodiversity conservation (Blum 1993), but this partnership collapsed in 2013
due to insufficient revenue (Pennisi 2013).
While biodiversity legislation was written “to stimulate the use of biodiversity, not
restrict it” (Pennisi 1998), unfortunately in many cases the opposite has occurred.
Laws intended to prevent biopiracy (profiting from local biodiversity resources or
knowledge without acknowledging or compensating local communities at all) fre-
quently fail to distinguish between activities designed to discover and commercial-
ize biodiversity resources (e.g., biodiscovery) and basic biodiversity and conservation
science (Pethiyagoda 2004). Such imprecise and ineffective regulations have resulted
in the inability to obtain permits for basic science research and to establish agree-
ments between local and foreign scientists (Rull and Vegas-Vilarrubia 2008), leading
to the termination of research collaborations (Ready 2002).
Biopiracy is a legitimate concern in developing countries, particularly those with
rich biodiversity resources, because benefit-sharing agreements can be inequitable
and/or fail to capture real issues regarding proprietary rights to traditional knowl-
edge (Prathapan and Rajan 2011). On the surface, restrictive legislation regarding
biodiversity research may seem to be the best way to protect national interests, but
such actions can come at a significant cost. First, one of the primary goals of the
CBD is the conservation of biodiversity, and it is essential to understand the nature
of biodiversity to effectively protect it (CBD Articles 6, 7, 8, and 12; Reaka 1997). In
the absence of fundamental biodiversity research, we cannot understand the bio-
logical composition or ecological function of local ecosystems, limiting our abilities
to conserve them. Second, to understand how ecosystems are being impacted by
anthropogenic stressors and climate change, and to develop conservation measures,
Bulletin of Marine Science. Vol 90, No 1. 20144
it is essential to have longitudinal data that allows the comparison of an ecosystem
in the past and present to determine what is natural (CBD Articles 7 and 14; Willis
and Birks 2006). Without this basic biodiversity research, we lack the essential base-
line data regarding ecosystem health, making us blind both to its degradation and
potential recovery. ird, and perhaps most significant, achieving and documenting
the sustainability goals of the CBD requires biodiversity scientists who are knowl-
edgeable in local flora and fauna (CBD Articles 12 and 13). As biodiversity research
is curtailed in the name of preventing biopiracy, so too are training opportunities
for students living in biodiversity rich countries. As a result, biodiversity expertise is
failing to meet the demand for biodiversity research, particularly in the most biodi-
verse regions of the world (Sodhi et al. 2004, Rodrigues et al. 2010).
To achieve the conservation and sustainability goals of the CBD, it is essential that
developing nations across the world benefit from their biodiversity resources. Here,
we explore the challenges of biodiversity research in developing countries and pro-
pose models for advancing research in these biodiversity hotspots. We focus largely
on Southeast Asia, a region that has the potential (and need) to realize significant
benefits from the tremendous concentration of marine and terrestrial biodiversity
in the region (Turner et al. 2012). Southeast Asia is facing a major biodiversity crisis.
is region has the highest rate of deforestation in the world and is poised to lose 42%
of its terrestrial biodiversity (Sodhi et al. 2004) and marine ecosystems are severely
threatened as well (Burke et al. 2011); however, there is minimal research effort fo-
cused in this region (Sodhi and Liow 2000, Fisher et al. 2011). While many factors
contribute to the paucity of biodiversity research (see below), protecting the biodi-
versity of this region and the benefits derived from it will require lowering obstacles
to biodiversity research, advancing both basic and applied conservation science in
Southeast Asia.
C B R S A
Challenges to biodiversity research are nearly universal. Even in developed coun-
tries like the US, it can take months or years to obtain permits to collect animals for
research that could be collected for recreational use with a hunting or fishing license.
However, a combination of limited infrastructure, weak institutions, and poor fund-
ing can make conservation in tropical counties especially challenging (Barrett et al.
2001), a pattern that holds true for Southeast Asia.
A R F
Field stations and marine laboratories provide essential logistic and support ser-
vices to biodiversity scientists and students, providing classrooms and wet/dry labo-
ratory space, animal holding facilities, boats and field transportation, and easy access
to biologically diverse environments in support of research and education activities.
World-class facilities draw research teams from all over the world, stimulating local
research effort and opportunities for collaboration with local scientists. Conversely,
a lack of this infrastructure can severely hinder both local and foreign-supported
research, even in areas with extraordinary biodiversity
Currently, there are more than 45 marine field stations in the Caribbean, with
half located in developing nations (Table 1). Multi-national marine institute orga-
nizations such as the Association of Marine Laboratories of the Caribbean further
Barber et al.: Advancing biodiversity research 5
Table 1. List of marine labs/eld stations in the Carribbean and southeast Asia, including location and research facilities. Dash indicates no information available about particular facilities. As many marine
lab/eld stations do not have websites, this list likely does not include some facilities.
Laboratory Location
Dry
laboratory
Molecular
laboratory
Wet
laboratory
Dive
support
Animal
facilities
Boats and
transport
Accessible
marine
habitats
Visitor
housing Website
Caribbean Sea region
e Bahamas
Gerace Research Centre San Salvador Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes www.geraceresearchcentre.com/
index.html
Perry Institute for Marine Science—Lee
Stocking Station
Exuma Cays Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes www.perryinstitute.org
Forfar Field Station Andros Yes No No Ye s Yes Ye s Yes Yes intleldstudies.org/eld-studies/
forfar-station.html
Bimini Biological Field Station Bimini Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes www6.miami.edu/sharklab/atthelab.
html
Cape Eleuthera Institute Eleuthra Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes www.ceibahamas.org
Barbados
Bellairs Research Institute Holetown Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes www.mcgill.ca/bellairs
UWI Centre for Resource Management and
Environmental Studies
Bridgetown Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes cermes.cavehill.uwi.edu/index.htm#
Belize
Glover’s Reef Research Station Glover Reef Atoll Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes wcsgloversreef.org
Univ. of Belize Calabash Caye Field Station Calabash Caye Yes No Ye s Ye s Yes Yes Yes Yes eriub.org/calabash-caye-eld-station/
page-3.html
Smithsonian Institution, Carrie Bow Cay Carrie Bow Cay Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes www.ccre.si.edu/CarrieBowCay/
CarrieBowCay.html
Possum Point - Wee Wee Caye Marine Lab Stann Creek Yes No No No No Yes Yes Ye s
Bermuda
Bermuda Institute of Ocean Sciences St George Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes www.bios.edu/#!/healthier-oceans
Cayman Islands
Central Caribbean Marine Institute Little Cayman Yes Yes Ye s Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes reefresearch.org/lcrc
Colombia
CEMARIN Santa Marta - - - - - - - - www.cemarin.org
Costa Rica
Caño Palma Biological Station Tortuguero No No No No No Yes Yes Yes www.coterc.org
Bulletin of Marine Science. Vol 90, No 1. 20146
Table 1. Continued.
Laboratory Location
Dry
laboratory
Molecular
laboratory
Wet
laboratory
Dive
support
Animal
facilities
Boats and
transport
Accessible
marine
habitats
Visitor
housing Website
Honduras
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institution,
Cayos Cochinos
Cayos Minor Ye s -Yes - - Ye s Yes Ye s
Roatan Institute of Marine Science Roatan Island Ye s No Ye s Yes No Ye s Yes Yes www.anthonyskey.com/rims/roatan-
institute-for-marine-sciences.htm
Jamaica
Port Royal Marine Laboratory, Mona Port Royale Yes No Ye s Yes Yes Yes Yes No www.mona.uwi.edu/lifesciences/
prml.htm
former Hofstra University Marine Labortory St Ann’s Bay Yes No Ye s Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Discovery Bay Marine Laboratory Discovery Bay Ye s No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes www.mona.uwi.edu/cms/dbml.htm
Mexico
Unidad de Sistemas Arrecifales, Instituto de
Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, UNAM
Puerto Morelos Ye s Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes - -
Netherlands Antilles
CARMABI Research Institute Curacao Ye s No Ye s Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes www.researchstationcarmabi.org
CIEE Research Station Bonaire Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes www.cieebonaire.org/index.html
Nicaragua
Univ. de las Regiones Autonomas de la
Coasta Caribe Nicaraguense
Blueelds Yes No Yes No No -Yes - www.uraccan.edu.ni/home.seam
Panama
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute,
Bocas del Toro
Bocas del Toro Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes www.stri.si.edu/english/research/
facilities/marine/bocas_del_toro
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute,
Barro Colorado
Barro Colorado Ye s No Ye s No Ye s Yes Yes Yes www.stri.si.edu/english/visit_us/
barro_colorado/index.php
Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute,
Galeta
Punta Galeta Yes No Ye s Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes www.stri.si.edu/english/visit_us/
galeta/index.php
Trinidad and Tobago
Institute of Marine Affairs Chaguaramas No No Yes No Ye s Yes No No www.ima.gov.tt/home
United States
Keys Marine Laboratory Florida Ye s Yes Ye s Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes www.keysmarinelab.org
Southeast Environmental Research Center Florida Ye s Yes Yes No Ye s Yes No No sercweb.u.edu
Barber et al.: Advancing biodiversity research 7
Table 1. Continued.
Laboratory Location
Dry
laboratory
Molecular
laboratory
Wet
laboratory
Dive
support
Animal
facilities
Boats and
transport
Accessible
marine
habitats
Visitor
housing Website
Nova Southeastern Univ. Oceanographic
Center
Florida Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No www.nova.edu/cwis/oceanography
Louisana Universities Marine Consortium -
DeFelice Marine Center
Louisiana Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes www.lumcon.edu/Information/
MarineCenter.asp
Mote Marine Laboratory Florida Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes www.mote.org
Univ. of South Florida Marine Science
Laboratory
Florida Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No www.marine.usf.edu
Rosenstiel School Florida Ye s Yes Ye s Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes www.rsmas.miami.edu
Marine Institute at Sapelo Island Georgia Ye s No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ugami.uga.edu
Univ. of Puerto Rico Isla Magueyes
Laboratory
Puerto Rico Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes www.uprm.edu/cima/magueyes.html
Univ. of the Virgin Islands MacLean Marine
Science Center
USVI Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No www.uvi.edu/sites/uvi/Pages/CMES-
Home.aspx?s=RE
Virgin Islands Environmental Resource
Station
USVI Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes www.islands.org/viers
Dauphin Island Sea Laboratory Alabama Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes www.disl.org
Gulf Coast Research Laboratory Mississippi Ye s No Ye s No Ye s Yes Yes No www.usm.edu/gcrl/index.php
Laguna Madre Field Station Texas Yes No No No No Yes Yes Yes www.sci.tamucc.edu/lagunamadre.
html
Univ. of Texas Marine Science Institute Texas Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No www.utmsi.utexas.edu/institute/
recruiting/MSI_overview.htm
Univ. of Florida Seahorse Key Laboratory Florida Ye s Yes Ye s Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes www.biology.u.edu/shkml/
Vester Marine Field Station Florida Ye s Yes Ye s Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes www.fgcu.edu/vestermarine/index.
html
Sanibel-Captiva Conservation Foundation
Marine Laboratory
Florida Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No www.sccf.org/content/72/Marine-
Laboratory.aspx
Southeast Asia region
Indonesia
Indonesian Biodiversity Research Center Bali Ye s Yes No No No No No No www.ibrcbali.org
Institute for Marine Research and
Observation
Bali - - - - - - - - www.bpol.litbang.kkp.go.id/imro
Research Institute for Inland Water Fisheries Palembang Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Ye s
University of Muhammadiyah Aquaculture
Laboratory
Gresik Yes No Yes No Ye s No Ye s No
Bulletin of Marine Science. Vol 90, No 1. 20148
Table 1. Continued.
Laboratory Location
Dry
laboratory
Molecular
laboratory
Wet
laboratory
Dive
support
Animal
facilities
Boats and
transport
Accessible
marine
habitats
Visitor
housing Website
Teluk Awur Marine Center, Diponegoro
University
Jepara Yes No Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sam Ratulangi University Marine Biology
Laboratory
Manado Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Indonesian Institute of Science (LIPI) Jakarta Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Malaysia
Borneo Marine Research Institute Sabah Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes www.ums.edu.my/ipmb/index.html
Univ. Sains Malaysia Centre for Marine and
Coastal Studies
Penang Yes Yes Yes No No Ye s No Yes cemacs.usm.my/index.php/en
Univ. of Malaya Institute Ocean and Earth
Science
Kelantan Yes No Yes No No Yes No No www.ioes.um.edu.my
Palau
Palau International Coral Reef Center Palau Ye s No Ye s Yes Yes Ye s Yes Ye s www.picrc.org
Philippines
De La Salle Univ. Shelds Marine Biological
Station
Batangas Yes No Yes Yes No Ye s Ye s Ye s www.dlsu.edu.ph/research/centers/
marine-station
SEAFDEC Igang Marine Station Guimaras No No No No Ye s Yes Yes Ye s www.seafdec.org.ph/our-
organization/stations-facilities/igang-
marine-station
San Carlos Univ. Marine Research Station Cebu Ye s No -No -Ye s -No cas.usc.edu.ph/biology
Silliman Univ.. Institute for Environmental
and Marine Science
Negros Oriental Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No Ye s Yes su.edu.ph/iems/index.shtml
Univ. of the Philippines, Bolinao Marine
Laboratory
Pangasinan Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes www.msi.upd.edu.ph/bml
Singapore
NUS Tropical Marine Science Center St John Island Ye s No Ye s No Yes Yes Yes Ye s www.tmsi.nus.edu.sg
Barber et al.: Advancing biodiversity research 9
advance marine science research through the exchange of research and technologies
between laboratories, helping marine scientists overcome cultural and social barri-
ers, and promoting sustainability of small laboratories with modest budgets. In con-
trast, field stations and marine laboratories are more limited in Southeast Asia (Table
1) and there are no similar multi-national consortia among marine laboratories and
field stations in Southeast Asia, reducing their overall impact. Furthermore, the dis-
tribution of facilities in Southeast Asia is highly variable in both quantity and quality.
For example, in the Philippines, there are a number of laboratories throughout the
country with basic laboratory equipment for alpha taxonomy work and a growing
number have access to laboratories that can carry out molecular genetic analyses. In
contrast, in countries like East Timor and Papua New Guinea, laboratory and field
stations can be quite limited or non-existent. Although these shortcomings partially
can be compensated through the ad-hoc initiatives of individual scientists or institu-
tions, but such efforts are often temporary and are not widely known through the
international research community, lessening their impacts.
While all biodiversity laboratory/field facilities are valuable resources, facili-
ties in Southeast Asia generally lack the level of infrastructure and administrative
support that many western scientists have come to expect from facilities such as
the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, La Selva Biological Station, or Lizard
Island Research Station. In the absence of world-class facilities to attract and sup-
port biodiversity researchers from around the world, research effort tends to focus
on a limited number of regions with well-developed research infrastructure (Fisher
et al. 2011). e need for marine facilities is particularly acute because many govern-
ments, including those in south Asia, often focus their limited funding and human
resources on terrestrial ecosystems, with little attention to marine biodiversity and
conservation.
Increasing biodiversity research capacity in Southeast Asia will require build-
ing and operating field stations and marine laboratory to international standards.
Developing these research facilities represents a significant investment. However,
just as investments in transportation infrastructure promote local economic devel-
opment by facilitating the movement of goods locally and internationally, the invest-
ment in research infrastructure returns tangible dividends. High quality research
facilities support local scientists, promoting research that will advance development
of the science and technology sectors of the economy. ese facilities also attract
foreign collaborators that bring with them much needed expertise and funding. e
result is a significant increase in number and impact of publications produced by the
local scientific community (Leta and Chaimovich 2002), which raises the visibility of
the science and the scientific challenges faced by developing countries. While scien-
tific publications may appear to have limited value for developing economies, basic
research is the foundation of applied research that leads to economic development
(Mansfield 1995, May 1997).
F
Despite humanity’s dependence on biodiversity for goods and services (Mace et
al. 2010), funding for biodiversity research is limited. Biodiversity research areas like
taxonomy, systematics, phylogenetics, and ecology are not identified as priority re-
search areas of most national funding agencies. For example, the entire budget for
the U.S. National Science Foundation Directorate for Biological Sciences was $712
Bulletin of Marine Science. Vol 90, No 1. 201410
million in 2011, of which only $272 million was allocated to Environmental Biology
or Biological Infrastructure, the two divisions most closely focused on biodiversity
research. In comparison, over $32 billion was appropriated to the National Institutes
of Health in the same year.
Although many Southeast Asian countries recognize the value of biodiversity, na-
tional funding for research (e.g., including infrastructure, training, and research ac-
tivities) is limited. In 2010, G-8 governments invested approximately the equivalent
of 2% of national GDP in research and development. In contrast, during the same
period, the Philippines and Indonesia invested 0.1% or less into research (World Bank
2013a), resulting in measurable research deficits. For example, the Government of
Indonesia only produced 437 new research patents during 2008 (1.8 per million resi-
dents). is number is much lower than the 818 new research patents in Malaysia (33
per million residents) and 902 in ailand (13.9 per million residents) (World Bank
2013b), each of which spent nearly 2.5–10 times more of their GDP on research fund-
ing (UNESCO 2013), showing a clear link between research investment and potential
for economic growth.
Compounding the challenges of limited funding is that funding models in many
Southeast Asian countries focus on short duration projects (1–2 yrs) and applied
research. For example, funding for marine research in the Philippines and Indonesia
frequently prioritizes increasing production of commercially important species, and/
or other technological applications linked to livelihood or industry development.
While applied research is an economic necessity in countries with limited research
funding, it is important to note that basic biodiversity research can play an impor-
tant role in conservation and sustainable development (Mikkelsen and Cracroft 2001,
Drew et al. 2012) and can feed directly into applied studies. For example, genetic bio-
diversity assayed through molecular and genomic tools is recognized as essential for
improving aquaculture production and in understanding population connectivity
for fishery management and conservation (e.g., MPA networks; see Beger et al. 2014,
von der Heyden et al. 2014), leading to improved food security. erefore, basic and
applied biodiversity research should not be viewed as mutually exclusive.
E
A major challenge in advancing biodiversity studies in developing countries is
the limited number of local researchers. For example, UNESCO (2013) shows that
Indonesia has the equivalent of 21,275 full-time researchers (89.5 per million resi-
dents) in all scientific fields compared to 1.41 million in the US (4650 per million res-
idents). As other research is prioritized over biodiversity studies, there is a dearth of
expertise in alpha taxonomy and systematics with taxonomic expertise in Southeast
Asia, and this is frequently limited to a small number of taxa, limiting local capacity
for biodiversity research.
Developing intellectual capacity for biodiversity research in Southeast Asia will
require facilities and funding to support biodiversity research (above) as well as en-
gagement of the international scientific community as the bulk of taxonomic ex-
pertise exists in developed nations. e practice of “parachute science” (western
scientists briefly conducting field research in a developing country then complet-
ing the research in their home country) constrains the realization of greater ben-
efits for all parties in collaborative research. e result is a lack of trust of “foreign
Barber et al.: Advancing biodiversity research 11
researchers” who are frequently viewed as exploitative by Southeast Asian govern-
ments and researchers.
Biodiversity research in Southeast Asia would benefit greatly if scientists from de-
veloped nations engaged more fully with local research communities. Establishing a
set of accepted good practices that includes real collaboration and training oppor-
tunities for local scientists would help differentiate basic biodiversity research from
exploitive enterprises. Digitizing museum records, publishing results in open-access
journals, and developing free online courses would also facilitate building biodiver-
sity expertise in developing countries.
It is also essential that western scientists understand the value of local scientific
and traditional ecological knowledge (Drew 2005), which can be can be expansive
and insightful. Ignoring this valuable resource wastes valuable knowledge accumu-
lated over centuries and fosters the false belief that western scientists’ knowledge
is superior to that of local scientists and communities. Furthermore the success of
long-term biodiversity monitoring programs may depend greatly on the level of in-
tegration of local communities, adaptation to local context and adequate support
(Danielson et al. 2003). erefore, advancing biodiversity research and conservation
in Southeast Asia will require greater collaboration and integration of local commu-
nities in conservation planning, decision making, and the generation of knowledge
(Danielson et al. 2003).
C
Western researchers are often unfamiliar with languages, cultures, and scientific
norms of Southeast Asia. As such, they most often bypass some of our planet’s most
diverse and unexplored ecosystems. For example, most coral reef research effort fo-
cuses on the Caribbean and the Great Barrier Reef (Fisher et al. 2011) because of the
easy access to English-speaking field stations—largely ignored is the Coral Triangle,
which is the most biodiverse marine ecosystem in the world. is phenomenon is a
loss to (1) scientists from developed countries who miss out on the opportunity for
discovery, (2) scientists in developing countries who could benefit from collabora-
tions with foreign experts, and (3) biodiversity conservation, as researchers fail to
provide data necessary for sustainability efforts.
Conservation programs have been known to fail because of the cultural, social,
and economic differences between local communities and developed countries that
fund them (Keppel et al. 2012). erefore, successful international collaboration in
Southeast Asia requires that local and western scientists appreciate the differences
in cultural norms. For example, behavior perceived as normal to a western scientist
(e.g., standing with one’s hands on one’s hips, leaning on a counter, wearing tight or
revealing clothing) may be offensive in Southeast Asia, undermining personal rela-
tionships and creating obstacles to collaboration. Many western universities have
cultural centers or offices of international programs that prepare students for over-
seas educational activities. Scientists would benefit greatly by tapping into these re-
sources to reduce cultural misunderstandings.
It is equally important to understand the differences among scientific cultures.
Desirable outcomes and the means used to obtain them vary greatly across cultures
and these differences can create misunderstandings, potentially leading to miscon-
duct in scientific research (Davis 2003). e real or perceived pressures from funding
sources, superiors, and the “publish or perish” notion in academia (Clapham 2005,
Bulletin of Marine Science. Vol 90, No 1. 201412
De Rond and Miller 2005) can lead to behaviors that are viewed as acceptable in one
culture, but not another (Ahmed et al 2003). Such variation highlights the need for
bridging cultural differences to ensure that the quality and legitimacy of research
is never compromised. Immersing visiting scientists in the culture and scientific
community of the host country or vice-versa can help build trust and cross-cultural
understanding among all parties, providing a strong foundation for sustained col-
laboration (below).
While cultural differences are impacting biodiversity research in Southeast Asia,
so too can cultural agreement. Many developing countries require foreign research-
ers to have a local collaborator as a precondition of a research permit. However,
inequality in training and access to resources combined with strong incentives for
local researchers to publish in international journals frequently leads to honorary au-
thorship. Western scientists often accept honorary authors as an expeditious path to
permits and completing their research, while local scientists are frequently willing to
be honorary authors to advance their careers. A recent study suggests that 25% of re-
search papers have honorary authors (Wislar et al. 2011). While ethical concerns call
for an end this practice (Greenland and Fontanarosa 2012), there are larger concerns
in developing countries. First, honorary authorship denies local scientists the abil-
ity to develop their research abilities. Second, it creates the perception that the local
scientific community may be stronger than it is. Advancing biodiversity research in
developing countries requires ending the culture of honorary authorships. Scientists
from developing countries should insist their contributions extend beyond obtain-
ing permits and samples and scientists from developed countries must engage their
local counterparts as true collaborators. Including such “best practices” as part of
Memoranda of Understanding, and clearly articulating author contributions on sci-
entific publications would substantially reduce the practice of honorary authorship.
P
Obtaining permits for biodiversity research is always a challenge, whether in de-
veloped or developing countries. However, obtaining permits while speaking a for-
eign language, working in an unfamiliar culture, and negotiating a new bureaucracy
is a unique challenge. Even for local researchers, the process of obtaining permits in
developing countries can be laborious, limiting biodiversity research in regions that
need it the most.
Frequently, permitting requires dealing with multiple agencies, and coordination
between those agencies can be limited. Working on endangered species, in marine
protected areas, and/or exporting samples can be particularly challenging. In some
cases, permitting laws are so strict as to make biodiversity research almost impos-
sible. For example, in India, the Biodiversity Act of 2002 strictly prohibits the export
of specimens, creating significant obstacles for the advancement of taxonomic stud-
ies in the country (Madhusudan et al. 2006, Rajan and Prathapan 2009, Prathapan
and Rajan 2009, Bhaskaran and Rajan 2010). Complicating matters is that permits
often must be processed in person, creating a burdensome time expense for local
researchers and permitting uncertainty for foreigners. Given the limited funding and
expertise in many developing biodiverse nations (above), streamlining permitting
procedures would help attract more foreign researchers, providing increased oppor-
tunity for collaboration and development of the scientific communities in developing
biodiverse countries.
Barber et al.: Advancing biodiversity research 13
T B M A B S
Given the substantial challenges above, advancing biodiversity research in devel-
oping countries will require employing new paradigms. Specifically, research efforts
in developing countries need to (1) help contribute to the development of research
infrastructure and educating local students in biodiversity science, (2) be creative to
leverage funding for biodiversity research, (3) adopt a new way of training local and
foreign students that builds biodiversity research capacity from the inside and out-
side and fosters cross-cultural understanding, and (4) adopt permitting systems that
foster research, rather than prevent it. ese goals are lofty and challenge the very
way that most science is done by emphasizing the process of conducting the sciences
rather than just the results. Below we highlight several examples that serve as valu-
able case studies for achieving these aims.
C S : P I R E
(PIRE)
In 2006, the US National Science Foundation initiated the PIRE program to fund
collaborative international research projects that emphasized both research results
and educational outcomes. In 2007, the Coral Triangle PIRE Project, a consortium
of three US universities plus five universities and two government agencies in the
Philippines and Indonesia, was funded to investigate the origins of high levels of
biodiversity in the Coral Triangle. is program employed a model where the proj-
ect augmented existing genetic laboratory facilities in the Philippines and Indonesia,
creating satellite laboratories suitable for the international research and education
goals of the project. US graduate students and postdoctoral scholars worked in these
labs for an entire year, and most of the research was conducted in the context of col-
laborative research-intensive short courses for US, Filipino, and Indonesian under-
graduate students.
Developing satellite laboratories is a recent trend with recognized benefits (Service
2012). In this PIRE project, Filipinos and Indonesians benefited from improved lab-
oratory infrastructure, research funding, and new educational opportunities. e
Americans benefited from access to local laboratories, the extensive experience of lo-
cal partners, and local funding that complemented NSF funds. However, there were
also significant challenges. Filipino and Indonesian partners had to ensure proper
personal and research conduct of US counterparts, as infractions have greater con-
sequences for hosting scientists than the US visitor. Filipino and Indonesian col-
laborators also struggled to meet the high research infrastructure expectations of
the Americans. American partners were challenged by the differences in educational
systems and frustrated by a slower rate of research progress. Moreover, maintaining
the collaborations after the end of the project has required commitment and dedica-
tion of both parties.
While challenging and time consuming, this model has been a strong success.
To date, the CT-PIRE program has published more than 15 collaborative research
articles (many of which appear in the present issue: DeBoer et al. 2014a,b, Raynal et
al. 2014, Willette et al. 2014a,b). is project has also stimulated at least eight suc-
cessful research proposals to programs such as the National Evolutionary Synthesis
Center, local ministries in Indonesia and the Philippines, USAID, and even another
Bulletin of Marine Science. Vol 90, No 1. 201414
NSF-PIRE. All US graduate students involved with the project developed theses fo-
cused on the Coral Triangle region, and numerous US undergraduate participants
have returned to the region, funded by programs like Fulbright. Combined, the ac-
tivities of the CT-PIRE project are truly expanding research capacity focused in the
Coral Triangle, both locally and internationally, highlighting the value of this model.
e CT PIRE project has been even richer in intangibles, such as the development
of mutual trust, the patience and flexibility to overcome cultural misunderstand-
ings among international laboratories, and developing managerial and pedagogical
experience for more senior US participants. It has also made US students and re-
searchers much more aware of the scope of biodiversity research in Indonesia and
the Philippines and their national research priorities. While these intangibles are
not quantified as easily as numbers of publications, they may end up being more
important in transforming ecology and evolution research in the Indo-Pacific region.
With a budget over $2.5 million, it is unreasonable to expect that the PIRE model
can be fully replicated frequently. However, even with modest budgets it is possible
to embrace the philosophy of this program—extended collaboration between scien-
tists from developed and developing countries. Cost of living is generally very low
throughout much of the developing world meaning that on-the-ground costs for for-
eign researchers to extend their fieldwork are relatively minimal. By budgeting more
time to conduct field research, one can spend more time working closely with local
scientists and establishing mentoring relationships with local students. Such nascent
collaborations can then be strengthened and extended as usual: through co-author-
ing and submission of papers and grant proposals, committee memberships, sab-
baticals, etc., resulting in significant benefits for all parties (e.g., Casiligan et al. 2013).
C S : I B R C
In 2009, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
Indonesia mission launched a funding initiative, “Supporting Universities to Partner
Across the Pacific” to foster partnerships between US and Indonesian universities in
an effort to improve the quality and access to higher education in Indonesia. Although
this program did not specifically target biodiversity research, it funded the formation
of the Indonesian Biodiversity Research Center (IRBC, http://www.IBRCBali.org) a
new institution devoted to advancing biodiversity research in Indonesia.
e goal of the IBRC is to foster biodiversity research by providing US and
Indonesian students and scientists’ modern biodiversity laboratory facilities (mi-
croscopy, digital imaging, molecular genetics) and training courses in modern bio-
diversity science. Formal educational activities at the IBRC consist of a series of four
2–4 week-long research-intensive courses (Scientific Diving, Molecular Ecology and
Evolution, Biodiversity Inventories, Phylogenetic Analysis). ese courses are taught
by leading western scientists and integrate formal lectures, hands on laboratory
training, and intensive fieldwork. Funding from USAID supports the training of up
to 24 Indonesians during the summer courses and 6–8 Indonesian students/scien-
tists are funded to conduct year-round research at the IBRC following completion
of their training. A total of 8–10 US graduate and undergraduate students also join
these courses. From 2009 to 2012 the IBRC has served an average of 50 participants
per year and research conducted by IBRC students has been published in interna-
tional journals. Furthermore, the modest 3-yr investment of $650,000 by USAID has
Barber et al.: Advancing biodiversity research 15
attracted more than $6 million in grants to both US and Indonesian scientists for
additional biodiversity research showing the strong success of the IBRC.
ere are several aspects key to the success of the IBRC model. First, it provides ac-
cess to facilities, supplies, and managerial staff to support research. ese resources
allow students and scientists at the IBRC to focus on pursuing their research inter-
ests, helping them to develop into independent biodiversity researchers. Second, the
IBRC is dedicated to fostering strong connections between Indonesian scientists and
international collaborators. Having short courses taught by western scientists gives
Indonesian students access to world-class training in biodiversity science that is not
available locally. By attracting additional biodiversity expertise into an extremely
understudied region of Southeast Asia (Fisher et al. 2011) these courses foster col-
laborations between western and Indonesian scientists, stimulating further research
in the region and graduate training opportunities for Indonesian students overseas.
ird, resident researchers at the IBRC take English language classes so that they can
more easily communicate with potential collaborators and publish results in inter-
national journals. Fourth, by investing directly in biodiversity research and train-
ing of biodiversity researchers, the IBRC is helping change the culture of research
in Indonesia by demonstrating that limited facilities and research funding does not
have to impede high quality research output.
While successful, this model is not without its challenges. First, some students
simply perceive research training as a job, a way to better their position or rank at
their home institution rather than important investment for their nation’s future.
Second, while activities at the IBRC have succeeded in training students and stim-
ulating a desire to continue with biodiversity research, there are limited positions
for this new research capacity in Indonesia and limited opportunities for graduate
studies or jobs overseas. us, while the IBRC is building capacity, there may not be
enough positions to absorb this capacity, precluding meaningful long-term growth
of biodiversity research capacity in Indonesia. ird, language differences combined
with significant cultural differences between western and Indonesian universities
has required that western faculty rethink their pedagogical approach. is process
can take multiple years, limiting the initial impact of such a center. However, despite
these challenges, the IBRC has been tremendously successful, providing greatly ex-
panded training opportunities and funding for biodiversity research in Indonesia.
erefore, for developing countries with limited funding and expertise, investing in
research facilities like the IBRC is a productive model for leveraging limited funding
into significant growth in research capacity.
C S : USAID PEER P
Limited funding for research in developing countries constrains access to the
training and facilities needed to conduct biodiversity research. US federal science
agencies, such as the National Science Foundation (NSF) and National Institutes
of Health (NIH), that fund American scientists conducting research in developing
countries may simultaneously place limits on spending those funds directly on for-
eign nationals. For example, initially the NSF-PIRE program strictly prohibited the
hiring for foreign-born postdoctoral associates or graduate students, although inclu-
sion of non-US participants could be funded on a limited basis through the “partici-
pant support” category.
Bulletin of Marine Science. Vol 90, No 1. 201416
To rectify funding inequities between US and foreign collaborators, USAID has
partnered with NSF and NIH to create the Partnerships for Enhanced Engagement
in Research (PEER) program to financially support collaborative research aligned
with USAID’s development objectives. In selected countries with USAID missions,
local scientists can apply to the PEER program to fund collaborations with NSF and
NIH-funded researchers. NSF and NIH funds the US portion of the collaboration
and USAID funds the developing country scientists as a form of international devel-
opment aid. Several Indonesian and Filipino partners of the CT-PIRE project (above)
were successful in applying for these PEER awards.
PEER directly benefits scientists in developing countries by providing much need-
ed research funding. However, the value of this model is much greater. First, PEER
is introducing or reinforcing the importance that research grants should be award-
ed competitively through a peer-review process—this is standard in many western
countries, but is not a universal model. Second, the program emphasizes developing
strong partnerships between local and US scientists and having impacts that extend
beyond the principal investigator(s). us, this program rewards the investigators
who can develop the best ideas, the strongest collaborations, and propose projects
that will broadly develop physical or intellectual research capacity, improving the
long-term prospects for science in these countries. Another key advantage of this
model is that it places developing country scientists directly in the role of lead inves-
tigator. While this role is familiar to most western scientists (and from a few devel-
oping countries with stronger science communities), it can be a novel role for many
scientists from developing countries. Being lead PI helps these scientists build their
managerial skills and enter into collaborations with US scientists more as equals. As
a result, these collaborations raise the profile of researchers in developing countries
and makes it is less likely that there will be issues of honorary authorship. Combined,
the outcomes of the USAID PEER program should be improved science infrastruc-
ture and a more vibrant, collaborative, internationally engaged science community
both in the US and in developing countries. Such a result could be instrumental in
helping break down some of the barriers that limit biodiversity research in these
regions.
C S : L B
While the above examples highlight productive models for advancing biodiversity
research in Southeast Asia, it is important to consider how other biodiverse coun-
tries have developed research capacity and approach international collaboration. A
particularly instructive example is Brazil, one of the world’s most biodiverse coun-
tries (Fearnside 1999, Jenkins 2003, Pimenta et al. 2005) that has used its natural and
human capital to develop into the world’s 6th largest e conomy.
For much of the 19th and 20th centuries Brazilian biodiversity was harvested ex-
tensively, resulting in significant loss of forest area (Dean 1995). For example, the
Atlantic forest of Brazil was reduced to <16% of its original size (Ribeiro et al.
2009). In 1994, the Brazilian federal government launched the National Program on
Biological Diversity (PRONABIO) and the Brazilian Ministry of Environment devel-
oped the National Biodiversity Policy in an effort to achieve the goals of the CBD,
but without curtailing economic growth. e articulation of clear national priori-
ties with respect to biodiversity resulted in policies promoting the restoration of the
Atlantic forest (Rodrigues et al. 2009) and the conservation of Brazilian biodiversity,
Barber et al.: Advancing biodiversity research 17
highlighting the importance of establishing biodiversity as a national priority in
megadiverse countries.
A central aspect of Brazilian national policy was an emphasis on growth in scientif-
ic capacity, including research programs on biodiversity and biodiscovery. is goal
was achieved through a commitment to strengthen the access to research resources
and facilities, increased funding, and programs to foster partnerships and collabora-
tions with scientists from developed countries (Brito Cruz and Chaimovich 2010).
A prime example of this commitment is the “Science without Borders” program, a
nationwide science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) scholarship program
with the goal of training 100,000 Brazilian students at leading international universi-
ties by 2014. Emphasis on science education and training helped Brazil climb to 13th
in global rankings of science publications (Regalado 2010), fostering the growth of
the science- and technology-based economy that contributed to economic growth
anda decreasein poverty (Ferreira de Souza 2012), outcomes critical to biodiversity
conservation (Adams et al. 2004).
Investment at the national level was accompanied by an increased investment in
biodiversity research and education at the state and local level. For example, in 1999
the São Paulo state funding agency Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São
Paulo (FAPESP) launched the BIOTA-FAPESP program to promote biodiversity re-
search, catalogue biodiversity and promote sustainable use of biodiversity resources
(Joly et al. 2010). BIOTA-FAPESP inspired other Brazilian states to establish simi-
lar programs and in 2009, the Brazilian federal government launched the national
program for biodiversity research. us, initial investments in biodiversity research
facilities and education resulted in an increased awareness for the greater need for
biodiversity research in Brazil, emphasizing the value of governmental investment
in biodiversity research. A critical result of these efforts to promote research and
education on biodiversity in Brazil is that the large majority of Brazilians currently
consider biodiversity conservation as very important (UNEP 2011).
M F T N P
While there are many challenges to biodiversity research in regions like the Coral
Triangle (above), there are also many positive developments in the growth of research
across Southeast Asia. For example, the 4th amendment to the Indonesian constitu-
tion now requires that 20% of government spending go toward education, to reduce
disparities in access to education, to enhance teaching quality, and to support access
to resources and facilities in research. Furthermore, Indonesia has set a goal to invest
the equivalent of 3% of GDP into science research to “build quality and competi-
tive human resources, infrastructures, and institutions for Science and Technology”
(http://www.ristek.go.id/). Similar increases in investment are occurring in the
Philippines as well, and governments throughout Southeast Asia are creating local
or regional partnerships to try to maximize the impact of limited resources.
Biodiversity conservation in developing countries is essential for economic growth
(Fuentes 2011), food security (Toledo and Burlingame 2006), and sustainable devel-
opment (Lovejoy 1994, Tisdell 1999, Langlois et al. 2012), all keys to conservation
of biodiversity resources. Brazil has enjoyed tremendous economic growth, yet de-
forestation has dropped to the lowest levels in 20 yrs (Tollefson 2012), indicating
that biodiversity regulations combined with education, economic diversification,
Bulletin of Marine Science. Vol 90, No 1. 201418
and scientific development can simultaneously improve biodiversity sustainability
and foster economic growth. For most countries in Southeast Asia, the training of
100,000 students in overseas universities, as in Brazil’s “Science without Borders”
program, is currently unrealistic. However, significant progress towards can be made
in other ways. Integrated long-term institutional development programs designed
to improve partnerships with countries and institutions that have more scientific
expertise and financial resources can help build and strengthen the research capac-
ity needed to study and promote sustainable development of biodiversity resources
in developing countries. Creating data repositories that raise the visibility of the ef-
forts of local scientists, would aid in catalyzing those partnerships. rough national
policies that encourage and foster international collaboration, biodiverse developing
countries could take meaningful initial steps toward strengthening and accelerat-
ing the growth of local research capacity, and in turn, economic development. It is
important to note that international collaboration need not be limited to Southeast
Asian scientists partnering with western scientists. Collaboration among scientists
from countries across Southeast Asia is also an important form of international col-
laboration that makes the most use of existing expertise and research capacity.
Unfortunately, the governments of many developing nations are discouraging the
very collaboration with foreign scientists needed to promote biodiversity research
and foster the growth of their science communities because of misdirected fears of
biopiracy. A key lesson from Brazil is that it is essential to engage the international
scientific community. It is also critical to have clear policies that acknowledge the
value of biodiversity, sending a critical message regarding the need to protect nation-
al biodiversity resources for sustainable economic development. However, restrictive
policies that make biodiversity research nearly impossible are counter-productive.
Governments in biodiverse developing countries should encourage biodiversity re-
search and invest in facilities that support local scientists and attract leading interna-
tional scientists. Biodiscovery should be appropriately regulated so that developing
countries benefit economically from their biodiversity resources and traditional
knowledge, but permitting needs to differentiate between biodiscovery and biodiver-
sity science. Furthermore, permit procedures need to be streamlined so that the lim-
ited resources available for biodiversity research can be invested in actual research.
Hybrid research/education models hold tremendous promise for changing the way
that biodiversity research is conducted in developing countries, maximizing the col-
lective benefits realized from biodiversity research. However, while the participation
of foreign biodiversity experts should be encouraged, it is critical that scientists from
developed countries realize that the benefits of this research must extend beyond the
data collected. Biodiversity scientists from developed countries have an obligation to
build research capacity in the developing countries in which they work.
International research/education partnerships can have strong mutual benefits,
but require a shift in thinking. Funding agencies and local governments need to ap-
preciate the importance of collaborative research between developing and developed
countries, and encourage research programs that have results that extend beyond
the data produced. ese partnerships need to be appropriately valued within the
scientific community and university administrations so that scientists will invest the
time and resources to pursue true collaborations rather than take the shortest path
to publication. e models above are examples of the kinds of programs needed to
advance biodiversity research in developing countries, but this is not an all-inclusive
Barber et al.: Advancing biodiversity research 19
list. ere are many creative ways to achieve meaningful international collaborations
that advance biodiversity research while building science capacity in developing
countries. e key is to take a broader, more inclusive view of the desired outcomes
of collaborative research, one that builds a foundation of mutual trust and benefits
all partners through advancing biodiversity science.
A
e authors thank the National Science Foundation (grants OISE-0730256 OCE-0349177)
and USAID (cooperative agreement 497-A-00-10-00008-00) for funding the international
research collaborations highlighted in this manuscript. We also thank the governments of
Indonesia (RISTEK, LIPI, and PHKA) and Philippines (NFRDI) for permitting the collab-
orative research and education activities herein. is material is based upon work supported
by the National Science Foundation through the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center
(NESCent) under grant number NSF #EF-0905606. A special thanks goes to C Riginos, and
the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center for organizing and hosting the Molecular Ecolog y
and Evolution of the Indo-Pacific Catalysis meeting that lead to this paper.
A C
is paper is the result of a NESCent working group on the molecular ecology and evolu-
tion of the Indo-Pacific. Most authors contributed to the conceptualization and outlining of
this paper at this catalysis meeting and all contributed to the writing. Specifically, PH Barber
led the writing and overall organization. MCA Ablan-Lagman, R Ravago-Gotanco, and MA
Juinio- Meñez led the writing of challenges and progress in the Philippines. Ambariyanto,
D Cahyani, IGN Mahardika, AHA Toha, and AW Anggoro led the writing of challenges
and progress in Indonesia. K Shanker and RGS Berlinck wrote on issues in India and Brazil,
respectively. ED Crandall, CJ Starger, and DA Willette led the writing about the NSF PIRE
project.
D
e views expressed in this paper those of the authors and do not represent any official
policy of the United States Department of State.
L C
Adams WM, Aveling R, Brockington D, Dickson B, Elliott J, Hutton J, Roe D, Vira B, Wolmer W.
2004. Biodiversity conservation and the eradication of poverty. Science. 306(5699):1146–
1149. PMid:15539593. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1097920
Ahmed MM, Chung KY, Wichenseher JW. 2003. Business students’ perception of eth-
ics and moral judgment: a cross-cultural study. J Bus Ethics. 43:89–102. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1023/A:1022915316112
Alho CJR. 2008. e value of biodiversity. Br J Biol. 68(4):1115–1118. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/
S1519-69842008000500018
Barnosky AD, Matzke N, Tomiya S, Wogan GOU, Swartz B, Quental TB, Marshall C, McGuire
JL, Lindsey EL, Maguire KC, et al. 2011. Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already ar-
rived? Nature. 471(7336):51–57. PMid:21368823. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature09678
Barrett CB, Brandon K, Gibson C , Gjertsen H. 2001. Conser ving tropical biodiversity amid we ak in-
stitutions. Bioscience. 51:497–502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2001)051[0497:CT
BAWI]2.0.CO;2
Bulletin of Marine Science. Vol 90, No 1. 201420
Bellwood DR, Meyer CP. 2009. Searching for heat in a marine biodiversity hotspot. J Biogeogr.
36(4):569–576. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2699.2008.02029.x
Bhaskaran A, Rajan PD. 2010. Advancing the science of taxonomy in India. Curr Sci.
99(2):157–158.
Blum E. 1993. Making biodiversity profitable: a case study of the Merck/INBio agreement.
Environment. 35(4):16–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00139157.1993.9929092
Brito Cruz CH, Chaimovich H. 2010. Brazil, in UNESCO Science Report 2010: e Current
Status of Science around the World - Executive Summary.
Burke L, Reytar K, Spalding M, Perry A. 2011. Reefs at risk revisited. Washington DC: World
Resources Institute.
Butchart SHM, Walpole M, Collen B, van Strien A, Scharlemann JPW, Almond REA, Baillie
JEM, Bomhard B, Brown C, Bruno J, et al. 2010. Global biodiversity: indicators of recent
declines. Science. 328(5982):1164–1168. PMid:20430971. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/
science.1187512
Cardinale BJ, Duffy JE, Gonzalez A, Hooper DU, Perrings C, Venail P, Narwani A, Mace GM,
Tilman D, Wardle DA, et al. 2012. Biodiversity loss and its impact on humanity. Nature.
486(7401):59–67. PMid:22678280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature11148
Casilagan ILN, Juinio-Meñez MA, Crandall ED. Genetic diversity, population struc-
ture, and demographic history of exploited sea urchin populations (Tripneustes gra-
tilla) in the Philippines. J Exp Mar Biol Ecol. 449:284–293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
jembe.2013.09.012
Chivian E, Bernstein A. 2008. Sustaining life—how human health depends on biodiversity.
Oxford University Press. PMid:18845759.
Clapham P. 2005. Publish or perish. Bioscience. 55:390–391. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1641/0006-3568(2005)055[0390:POP]2.0.CO;2
Cragg GM, Katz F, Newman DJ, Rosenthal J. 2012. e impact of the United Nations Convention
on Biological Diversity on natural products research. Nat Product Reports. 29(12):1407–
1423. PMid:23037777. http://dx.doi.org/10.1039/c2np20091k
Dalton R. 2004. Bioprospectors hunt for fair share of profits. Nature. 427(6975):576–576.
PMid:14961086. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/427576a
Danielsen F, Mendoza MM, Alviola P, Balete DS, Enghoff M, Poulsen MK, Jensen AE. 2003.
Biodiversity monitoring in developing countries: what are we trying to achieve? Oryx.
37:407–409. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0030605303000735
Davis MS. 2003. e role of culture in research misconduct. Accountability Res. 10:189–201.
PMid:14979320. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/714906092
DeBoer TS, Naguit MR, Erdmann MV, Ablan-Lagman MCA, Ambariyanto, Carpenter KE,
Toha AHA, Barber PH. 2014. Concordance between phylogeographic and biogeographic
boundaries in the Coral Triangle: conservation implications based on comparative analyses
of multiple giant clam species. Bull Mar Sci. ##:##–##.
De Rond M, Miller AN. 2005. Publish or perish—bane or boon of academic life? J Manage
Inquiry. 14:321–329. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1056492605276850
Dean W. 1995 With broadax and firebrand: the destruction of the Brazilian Atlantic forest.
Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 504.
Diaz S, Fargione J, Chapin FS III, Tilman D. 2006. Biodiversity loss threatens human well-
being. Plos Biology. 4(8):1300–1305. PMid:16895442. PMCid:PMC1543691. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0040277
Dolan AH, Taylor M, Neis B, Ommer R, Eyles J, Schneider D, Montevecchi B. 2005.
Restructuring and health in Canadian coastal communities. EcoHealth. 2:195–208. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10393-005-6333-7
Drew JA. 2005. Use of traditional ecological knowledge in marine conservation. Conserv Biol.
19:1286–1293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2005.00158.x
Drew JA, Buxman CL, Holmes DD, Mandecki JL, Mungkaje AJ, Richardson AC, Westnead
MW. 2012. Biodiversity inventories and conservation of the marine fishes of Bootless Bay,
Barber et al.: Advancing biodiversity research 21
Papua New Guinea. BMC Ecol. 12:15. PMid:22849436. PMCid:PMC3515464. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1186/1472-6785-12-15
Easterbrook G. 1994. e spotted owl—an environmental parable—the birds. New Republic.
210(13):22–27.
Ehrlich PR, Pringle RM. 2008. Where does biodiversity go from here? A grim business-as-usual
forecast and a hopeful portfolio of partial solutions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 105:11,579–
11,586. PMid:18695214. PMCid:PMC2556413. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0801911105
Fearnside PM. 1999. Biodiversity as an environmental service in Brazil’s Amazonian forests:
risks, value and conservation. Environ Conserv. 26(4):305–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S0376892999000429
Ferreira de Souza PHG. 2012. Poverty, inequality and social policies in Brazil, 1995–2009.
Brasilia: International Policy Centre for Inclusive Growth (IPC-IG). p. 28.
Fisher R, Radford BT, Knowlton N, Brainard RE, Michaelis FB, Caley MJ. 2011. Global mis-
match between research effort and conservation needs of tropical coral reefs. Conserv Lett.
4(1):64–72. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2010.00146.x
Freudenburg WR, Wilson LJ, O’Leary DJ. 1998. Forty years of spotted owls? A longitudinal
analysis of logging industry job losses. Sociological Perspect. 41(1):1–26. http://dx.doi.
org/10.2307/1389351
Fuentes M. 2011. Economic growth and biodiversity. Biodiversity Conserv. 20(14):3453–3458.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531-011-0132-y
Gallai N, Salles JM, Settele J, Vaissiere BE. 2009. Economic valuation of the vulnerability of
world agriculture confronted with pollinator decline. Ecol Econ. 68(3):810–821. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.06.014
Greenland P, Fontanarosa PB. 2012. Ending honorary authorship. Science. 337(6098):1019–
1019. PMid:22936744. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1224988
Hooper DU, Chapin FS, Ewel JJ, Hector A, Inchausti P, Lavorel S, Lawton JH, Lodge DM,
Loreau M, Naeem S, et al. 2005. Effects of biodiversity on ecosystem functioning: a con-
sensus of current knowledge. Ecol Monogr. 75(1):3–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/04-0922
Jenkins M. 2003. Prospects for biodiversity. Science. 302(5648):1175–1177. PMid:14615529.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1088666
Joly CA, Rodrigues RR, Metzger JP, Haddad CFB, Verdade LM, Oliveira MC, Bolzani VS.
2010. Biodiversity conservation research, training, and policy in Sao Paulo. Science.
328(5984):1358–1359. PMid:20538935. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1188639
Keppel G, Morrison C, Watling D, Tuiwawa M, Rounds IA. 2012. Conservation in tropical
Pacific Island countries: why most current approaches are failing. Conserv Lett. 5:256–265.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1755-263X.2012.00243.x
Langlois EV, Campbell K, Prieur-Richard AH, Karesh WB, Daszak P. 2012. Towards a better
integration of global health and biodiversity in the new sustainable development goals be-
yond Rio+20. EcoHealth. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10393-012-0800-8
Leta J, Chaimovich H. 2002. Recognition and international collaboration: the Brazilian case.
Scientometrics. 53(3):325–335. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1014868928349
Levin PS, Levin DA. 2002. e real biodiversty crisis. Am Sci. 90(1):6–8.
Lovejoy TE. 1994. e quantification of biodiversity: an esoteric quest or a vital component
of sustainable development? R Soc Philos Trans Biol Sci. 345(1311):81–87. PMid:7972359.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1994.0089
Mace GM, Cramer W, Diaz S, Faith DP, Larigauderie A, Le Prestre P, Palmer M, Perrings C,
Scholes RJ, Walpole M, et al. 2010. Biodiversity targets after 2010. Curr Opin Environ
Sustainability. 2(1–2):3–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2010.03.003
Madhusudan MD, Shanker K, Kumar A, Mishra C, Sinha A, Arthur R, Datta A, Rangarajan
M, Chellam R, Shahabuddin G, et al. 2006. Science in the wilderness: the predicament of
scientific research in India’s wildlife reserves. Curr Sci. 91:1015–1019.
Mansfield E. 1995. Academic research underlying industrial innovations: sources, character-
istics, and financing. Rev Econ Statistics. 77(1):55–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2109992
Bulletin of Marine Science. Vol 90, No 1. 201422
May RM. 1997. e scientific wealth of nations. Science. 275:793–796. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1126/science.275.5301.793
McMichael AJ, Friel S, Nyong A, Corvalan C. 2008. Global environmental change and health:
impacts, inequalities, and the health sector. BMJ. 336(7637):191–194. PMid:18219041.
PMCid:PMC2214484. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39392.473727.AD
Meyer SM. 1995. e economic impact of environmental regulation. J Environ Law Practice.
3(2):4–15.
Meyer SM. 1997. e economic impact of the Endangered Species Act on the housing and real
estate markets. NYU Environ Law J. 6(2):450–478.
Mikkelsen PM, Cracraft J. 2001. Marine biodiversity and the need for systematic inventories.
Bull Mar Sci. 69(2):535–534.
Myers N, Mittermeier RA, Mittermeier CG, da Fonseca GAB, Kent J. 2000. Biodiversity
hotspots for conservation priorities. Nature. 403(6772):853–858. PMid:10706275. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1038/35002501
Newman DJ, Cragg GM. 2007. Natural products as sources of new drugs over the last 25 years.
J Nat Products. 70(3):461–477. PMid:17309302. http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/np068054v
Newman DJ, Cragg GM. 2010. Natural products as drugs and leads to drugs: the historical
perspective. In: Buss AD, Butler MS, editors. Natural product chemistry for drug discovery.
e Royal Society of Chemistry. p. 440.
Normile D. 2010. Saving forests to save biodiversity. Science. 329(5997):1278–1280.
PMid:20829464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.329.5997.1278
NRC. 2005. Valuing ecosystem services: toward better environmental decision-making. e
National Academies Press.
Pennisi E. 1998. Genetic ownership—Brazil wants cut of its biological bounty. Science.
279(5356):1445–1445. PMid:9508717. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.279.5356.1445a
Pennisi E. 2013. Costa Rica’s INBio facing government bailout. http://news.sciencemag.org/
environment/2013/04/costa-ricas-inbio-facing-government-bailout.
Pergams ORW, Zaradic PA. 2006. Is love of nature in the US becoming love of electronic me-
dia? 16-year downtrend in national park visits explained by watching movies, playing video
games, internet use, and oil prices. J Environ Manage. 80(4):387–393. PMid:16580127.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.02.001
Pergams ORW, Zaradic PA. 2008. Evidence for a fundamental and pervasive shift away from
nature-based recreation. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 105(7):2295–2300. PMid:18250312.
PMCid:PMC2268130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0709893105
Pethiyagoda R. 2004. Biodiversity law has had some unintended effects. Nature. 429:129.
PMid:15141185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/429129a
Pimenta BVS, Haddad CFB, Nascimento LB, Cruz CAG, Pombal JP. 2005. Comment on
“Status and trends of amphibian declines and extinctions worldwide.” Science. 309(5743).
PMid:16179460. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1112996
Pimm SL, Russell GJ, Gittleman JL, Brooks TM. 1995. e future of biodiversity. Science
269(5222):347–350. PMid:17841251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.269.5222.347
Prathapan KD, Rajan PD. 2009. Protectionism and natural history research in India. Curr Sci.
97(10):1411–1413.
Prathapan KD, Rajan PD. 2011. Biodiversity access and benefit-sharing: weaving a rope of sand.
Curr Sci. 100(3):290–293.
Rajan PD, Prathapan KD. 2009. Shared ownership of biological resources. Science. 324:1014–
1015. PMid:19460983. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.324_1014c
Rands MRW, Adams WM, Bennun L, Butchart SHM, Clements A, Coomes D, Entwistle A,
Hodge I, Kapos V, Scharlemann JPW, et al. 2010. Biodiversity conservation: challenges
beyond 2010. Science. 329(5997):1298–1303. PMid:20829476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/
science.1189138
Barber et al.: Advancing biodiversity research 23
Raynal JM, Crandall ED, Barber PH, Mahardika GN, Lagman MC, Carpenter KE. 2014. Basin
isolation and oceanographic features influencing lineage divergence in the humbug damsel-
fish (Dascyllus aruanus) in the Coral Triangle. Bull Mar Sci. ##:##–##.
Ready T. 2002. “Biopiracy” issue stops research. Nat Med. 8(1):9–9. PMid:11786889. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1038/nm0102-9b
Reaka ML. 1997. e global biodiversity of coral reefs: a comparison with rain forests. In:
Reaka-Kudla ML, Wilson DE, Wilson EO, editors. Biodiversity II: understanding and pro-
tecting our biological resources. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press. p. 83–108.
Regalado A. 2010. Brazillian science: riding a gusher. Science. 330:1306–1312. PMid:21127226.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.330.6009.1306
Ribeiro MC, Metzger JP, Martensen AC, Ponzoni FJ, Hirota MM. 2009. e Brazilian Atlantic
Forest: how much is left, and how is the remaining forest distributed? Implications for con-
servation. Biol Conserv. 142(6):1141–1153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2009.02.021
Roberts CM, McClean CJ, Veron JEN, Hawkins JP, Allen GR, McAllister DE, Mittermeier CG,
Schueler FW, Spalding M, Wells F, et al. 2002. Marine biodiversity hotspots and conser-
vation priorities for tropical reefs. Science. 295(5558):1280–1284. PMid:11847338. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1067728
Rodrigues ASL, Gray CL, Crowter BJ, Ewers RM, Stuart SN, Whitten T, Manica A. 2010. A
global assessment of amphibian taxonomic effort and expertise. Bioscience. 60(10):798–
806. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/bio.2010.60.10.6
Rodrigues RR, Lima RAF, Gandolfi S, Nave AG. 2009. On the restoration of high diversity
forests: 30 years of experience in the Brazilian Atlantic Forest. Biol Conserv. 142(6):1242–
1251. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2008.12.008
Service RF. 2012. Satellite labs extend science. Science. 337(6102):1600–1603. PMid:23019625.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.337.6102.1600
Shackleton CM. 2001. Re-examining local and market-orientated use of wild species for the
conservation of biodiversity. Environ Conserv. 28(3):270–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/
S0376892901000285
Shyamsundar P, Lanier GK. 1994. Biodiversity prospecting: an effective conservation tool?
Trop Biodivers. 2(3):441–446.
Sodhi NS, Koh LP, Brook BW, Ng PKL. 2004. Southeast Asian biodiversity: an impending
disaster. Trends Ecol Evol. 19(12):654–660. PMid:16701328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
tree.2004.09.006
Sodhi NS, Liow LH. 2000. Improving conservation biology research in Southeast Asia. Conserv
Biol. 14(4):1211–1212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99416.x
Stokstad E. 2010. Despite progress, biodiversity declines. Science. 329(5997):1272–1273.
PMid:20829462. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.329.5997.1272
omas CD, Cameron A, Green RE, Bakkenes M, Beaumont LJ, Collingham YC, Erasmus BFN,
de Siqueira MF, Grainger A, Hannah L, et al. 2004. Extinction risk from climate change.
Nature. 427(6970):145–148. PMid:14712274. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature02121
Tisdell CA. 1999. Biodiversity, conservation and sustainable development: principles and prac-
tices with Asian examples. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. PMid:10472675.
Toledo A, Burlingame B. 2006. Biodiversity and nutrition: a common path toward global food
security and sustainable development. J Food Composition Analysis. 19(6–7):477–483.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2006.05.001
Tollefson J. 2012. Brazil set to cut forest protection. Nature. 485(7396):19. PMid:22552069.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/485019a
Turner WR, Brandon K, Brooks TM, Gascon C, Gibbs HK, Lawrence KS, Mittermeier RA,
Selig ER. 2012. Global biodiversity conservation and the alleviation of poverty. Bioscience.
62(1):85–92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/bio.2012.62.1.13
UNESCO 2013. United National Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization Institute
for Statistics Data Center. Available from: http://stats.uis.unesco.org/unesco/TableViewer/
document.aspx?ReportId=136&IF_Language=eng&BR_Topic=0.
Bulletin of Marine Science. Vol 90, No 1. 201424
UNEP 2011. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity United Nations Environment
Programme. Available from: http://www.cbd.int/doc/press/2011/pr-2011-05-05-barome-
ter-en.pdf.
Wake DB, Vredenburg VT. 2008. Are we in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? A view from
the world of amphibians. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 105:11,466–11,473. PMid:18695221.
PMCid:PMC2556420. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0801921105
Willette DA, Carpenter KE, Santos MD. 2014a. Evolution of the freshwater sardinella,
Sardinella tawilis (Clupeiformes: Clupeidae), in Taal Lake, Philippines and identification of
its marine sister-species, Sardinella hualiensis. Bull Mar Sci. ##:##–##.
Willette DA, SeebJE, Allendorf FW,Barber PH, Barshis DJ, Carpenter KE, CrandallED, Cresko
WA, Fernandez-SilvaI, Matz MV, Meyer E, Seeb LW. 2014b. Pan-Pacific Advanced Studies
Institute (PacASI) on genomic applications to marine science and resource management in
Southeast Asia. Bull Mar Sci. ##:##–##.
Willis KJ, Birks HJB. 2006. What is natural? e need for a long-term perspective in biodiversity
conservation. Science. 314(5803):1261–1265. PMid:17124315. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/
science.1122667
Wislar JS, Flanagin A, Fontanarosa PB, DeAngelis CD. 2011. Honorary and ghost authorship in
high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey. BMJ. 343.
World Bank 2013a. World Development Indicators Database. Available from:
http://databank.worldbank.org/data/views/variableSelection/selectvariables.
aspx?source=world-development-indicators.
World Bank 2013b. Patent applications, residents. Available from: http://data.worldbank.org/
indicator/IP.PAT.RESD
B
M
S
