BIOTA+10 on the right path

The 7th Evaluation Meeting of the BIOTA-FAPESP Program and the Evaluation Meeting of BIOprospecTA were concluded on July 11, 2011 at FAPESP’s headquarters in São Paulo.

By Fábio de Castro

Agência FAPESP – The 7th BIOTA-FAPESP Program Evaluation Meeting and the BIOprospecTA Evaluation Meeting,  were concluded on July 11, 2011 at FAPESP’s headquarters in São Paulo. The evaluation committee presented its final report to the scientific directors of the São Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP), Carlos Henrique de Brito Cruz.

During the event, held in conjunction with the 7th Symposium of the BIOTA-FAPESP Program at Universidade de São Paulo (USP), São Carlos campus, coordinators of all participating program projects submitted the results of their work to an international committee of evaluators.

Initiated in 1999 and forecast to last 10 years, the  BIOTA-FAPESP program is evaluated periodically by an international committee. When the initial duration was concluded, coordinators proposed another decade long cycle, which FAPESP agreed to fund.

During the opening of the event on July 3, program coordinator Carlos Alredo Joly highlighted that the seventh edition of the meeting would have a special character as it would be the first evaluation since FAPESP granted the new funding.

According to Roberto Berlinck, event coordinator and member of the BIOTA-FAPESP’s program coordination team, the result of the evaluation was excellent – and has special significance since it was the first held after BIOTA+10.

“With its guidelines updated, the program showed that it has managed to consolidate both operationally and programmatically in relation to its stated objectives. The programs seeks to be more and more complete, covering at the same time questions that are deeper, with a view to adding more knowledge and promoting biodiversity in general,” Berlinck commented to Agência FAPESP.

The two first days of the event were dedicated to the symposium where Brazilian and international conference-goers could attend oral presentations on 22 scientific works submitted by students and panels on each of the projects that participate in BIOTA-FAPESP.

“These activities bring together coordinators, students and groups of evaluators. The objective was met: many questions were raised and there was an intense exchange of information and interaction among groups,” affirms Berlinck.

As of the third day, the evaluators began interacting directly with project coordinators, which had already met in groups over the two previous days to discuss demands, expectations and suggestions within each group, split among ten themes. Each of the groups gave a brief presentation to the group of evaluators, which discussed questions in great detail.

“As of the fourth and fifth day, the evaluators worked among themselves, discussing the entire process of evaluation, how the program is going, what the prospects are, suggestions and negative and positive points,” he said.

According to him, the scientific community’s participation in the evaluation – and the efforts of involved students and scientists to meet, participate and contribute to the excellence of the program – were all considered  positive points by the international committee.

“Additionally, one of the main positive points raised by evaluators is that BIOTA-FAPESP’s coordination listens to and implements the suggestions of previous evaluation committees. This was considered a very positive point from an operational standpoint,” he says.

Among the committee participants were Arthur Chapman, Australian Biodiversity Information Service (Australia), Danial Faith, researcher at the Australian Museum in Sydney (Australia), Robert Verpoorte, professor at Leiden University (Holland), and Ronald O’Dor, of Dalhousie University (Canada).

Data organization

Another very favorable point, according to the evaluation, corresponds to the different calls for research proposals elaborated by BIOTA-FAPESP that allowed the program to add new groups and research lines.
“This point was especially valorized because these calls sought to reach parts of the program that had not yet been covered. One of the aspects highlighted by evaluators is that the program advance with quality in the right direction, expanding their objectives, adding more researchers, generating more knowledge,” says Berlinck.

The committee observed that it will be necessary to optimize some aspects of the program, especially the databases. “The organization of databases is crucial for the program. This is an extremely complex activity that is receiving significant efforts, but we still have a long road ahead,” the report notes.

To this end, the SinBiota database is being transferred from the Environmental Information Reference Center (Cria) to the National High Performance Processing Center at  Universidade Estadual de Campinas (Unicamp). “This restructuring is being conducted and the expectation is that SinBiota will be completely operational before the next evaluation,” explains Berlinck.

According to him, the BIOprospecTA database should be interacting with the BIOTA-FAPESP database before the next evaluation. “It is fundamental that the two databases dialogue in a functional manner,” he notes.
In the previous evaluation (2008) the committee recommended that BIOTA-FAPESP increase coverage in some research areas like marine biodiversity. The evolution in this regard was well-received by evaluators.

“The evaluators were satisfied to see that there is interest in the São Paulo scientific community in exploring marine biodiversity – something that had not been broadly covered in the first 10 years of the program. The trend is for more emphasis on this field without affecting other areas,” says Berlinck.

In relation to internationalization, another of BIOTA+10’s central guidelines, the evaluation was also positive. “It is important to emphasize that efforts should be made to include researchers from other countries in the projects included in the program. This is viewed favorably by the evaluation committee, as well as the coordination and FAPESP,” says Berlinck.