1
The Repository of Life

Life comes in many forms, sizes, and shapes. This rich diversity of forms, sizes, and shapes of life on Earth, estimated at more than 1 trillion species (Locey et al., 2016), gives rise to wonder and fuels the curiosity that drives scientific discovery, advances, and innovation worldwide. For centuries, scientists have sought and collected different types of organisms to learn more about their forms, functions, origins, distributions, and evolution. Pooling and conserving these organisms into biological collections—systematized repositories of life in all of its many forms—is a cornerstone of quality research and education in many areas of science and innovation (Dunnum et al., 2017; Jarrett and McCluskey, 2019; Koornneef and Meinke, 2010; McCluskey, 2017; Meineke et al., 2018b; Schindel and Cook, 2018). Scientists and educators who study and teach about life on Earth rely on biological collections as an important underlying scientific infrastructure upon which their knowledge and learning build and grow.

Biological collections typically consist of organisms (specimens) and their associated biological material, such as preserved tissue and DNA, along with data—digital and analog (such as handwritten field notes)—that are linked to each specimen. Non-living specimens include organisms preserved by scientists and naturally preserved remains, such as fossils. Such collections of non-living specimens are commonly referred to as natural history collections. Living specimens include research and model organisms that are grown and maintained in genetic stock centers, germplasm repositories, or living biodiversity collections. The defining trait of these different types of collections is that they capture aspects of the living world in such a way that it can be intensively studied and understood through time.

Biological collections provide a wide range of benefits to science and society. For one, biological collections are at the core of dynamic research on globally relevant societal issues by serving as archives of our natural heritage and preventing loss of knowledge about life on Earth. They support research on basic biological structures and processes (e.g., Lister, 2011; Shaffer et al., 1998) and deepen our understanding of evolution, biodiversity, and global environmental change (Lang et al., 2019; Meineke et al., 2018b). Herbarium¹ specimens, for example, can be used to study atmospheric conditions in the past and inform scientific understanding of global change over time (see Box 1-1). Biological collections advance science in ways unanticipated from when a specimen was first collected. One renowned example is the development of the polymerase chain reaction technique for replicating DNA, which was among the most influential discoveries of the 20th century (see Box 1-2). Biological collections also underpin and enrich the knowledge of students of all ages about biology and biodiversity (Antunes et

___________________

¹ Natural history collections of plants.

al., 2016; Beckmann et al., 2015; Lacey et al., 2017). Schools, universities, and research laboratories use biological collections to teach concepts of evolution, ecology, taxonomy, physiology, biogeography, conservation, and more (see Box 1-3). Finally, many biological collections connect the public to nature and science, bolstering lifelong learning (Graham et al., 2004; Hill et al., 2012; MacFadden, 2019; Suarez and Tsutsui, 2004).

Unfortunately, the sustainability of the nation’s biological collections is under threat. The causes are many, ranging from a general lack of understanding of their value and their contributions to research and education and a lack of appreciation for what is required to maintain them effectively, to inadequate coordination and interconnection among the collections that make up the critical infrastructure. Without necessary changes in support and leadership, the prior and current investments in time, money, and staff resources for building the nation’s biological collections will be diminished, and their immense potential in supporting science, innovation, and education in the United States and elsewhere will be severely limited.

PURPOSE OF THE STUDY

Recognizing the importance and the vulnerabilities of the nation’s biological collections, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has endeavored to provide broad financial support through its Division of Biological Infrastructure (DBI) within the Directorate for Biological Sciences (BIO) (see Box 1-4). However, the breadth of needs for maintaining biological collections exceeds the capabilities of any one federal agency. Many U.S. government agencies, including NSF, the Department of Agriculture (USDA), the National Institutes of Health, the Department of the Interior, and the Department of Energy, support research that uses and creates biological collections, but agency support for maintenance

of those collections, if any, is not proportional to their use in agency-funded research. NSF is continuing to provide support, but it welcomes guidance on a wide range of questions. What operational structures, policies, and cultures could provide momentum to maintain and grow biological collections? What options are adaptable, transferable, or scalable for different types of collections? What is needed to ensure the long-term sustainability of the nation’s biological collections? For these reasons, NSF asked the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies) to address the following:

• explore the contributions of biological collections of all sizes and institutional types to research and education;
• envision future innovative ways in which biological collections can be used to further advance science;
• outline the critical challenges to and needs for their use and maintenance, including the quality control challenges faced by living stock collections, to enable their continued use to benefit science and society; and
• suggest a range of long-term strategies that could be used for their sustained support.

The full Statement of Task for the study is provided in Appendix A. NSF asked that these tasks be addressed in the context of the “living stocks (organisms) and preserved repositories of biodiversity specimens and materials” (i.e., natural history collections) that receive, or are eligible to receive, support for infrastructure or digitization from NSF-DBI. As a result, this report does not explicitly address living collections in zoos, aquaria, or botanical gardens; biobanks or repositories of human tissues; or anthropological and geological collections (excluding fossils). This report does not cover biological collections owned by federal agencies. Although these types of collections may be housed in the same institutions as NSF-supported biological collections or be used in research supported by NSF (e.g., USDA germplasm collections), DBI does not provide support for their infrastructure. The committee, however, recognizes that many of the “excluded” collections share the same challenges and opportunities. Thus, examples used in the report may be drawn from collections outside the domain of NSF-DBI-supported research.

The Committee’s Approach

To fulfill the Statement of Task, the National Academies convened a committee of 13 distinguished experts whose collective experience included a diversity of biological collections, K–12 and informal education, and science communication. The committee held four in-person meetings, including a public workshop, and five webinars as part of its information-gathering process (see Appendix B for the public meeting agendas and list of invited speakers). The public meetings, workshop, and webinars featured a total of 25 speakers who covered a range of topics needed to address the Statement of Task, including the history, philosophy, and role of biological collections; emerging and novel

applications of biological collections in research and education; and advances in cyberinfrastructure and digitization. As befits an issue of great concern to the Earth and life sciences communities, a number of experts have issued reports describing the challenges facing both federal and non-federal collections in the United States and identifying opportunities for integration, innovation, and tracking long-term impacts (see Box 1-5). These reports address specific categories of biological collections: a total of six reports on federal biological collections, geological collections, living stock collections, genetic collections, and natural history collections. The committee’s analyses and deliberations led to this final Consensus Study Report, which draws on the presentations the committee heard, its review of scientific and other literature, and the expertise of its members.

In responding to the Statement of Task, the committee considered two broad categories of biological collections: (1) non-living organisms, also referred to as natural history collections; and (2) living organisms, including research and model organisms. The scope of the study is broad, encompassing the contributions of “biological collections of all sizes and across institution types to research and education.” The committee identified areas of tension that stem from the scope of the study and that are inherent within the biological collections community. Biological collections are diverse—taxonomically, organizationally, and in their missions and needs. There is also tension that arises from differences between living stock collections and natural history collections. With the exception of a few biodiversity-focused living collections,² living and natural history collections communities (e.g., directors, managers, curators, and users) operate largely independently of one another. This report is the first of its kind to address the challenges and promise of both living stock collections and natural history collections. The committee acknowledges that living stock collections and natural history collections have distinct purposes and needs, but the committee also found that there are many opportunities for these communities to learn from one another and collaborate. Throughout the report, the committee highlights some of these potential synergies and intersections (e.g., digital genetic data, extended specimen information) as well as key distinctions (e.g., business strategies, quality control). The report is not an exhaustive compendium of every issue, but is intended to launch a national conversation about strategic collaboration between the living stock and natural history collection communities.

THE PROMISE OF BIOLOGICAL COLLECTIONS

Biological collections are an invaluable, and often irreplaceable, component of the nation’s scientific enterprise. They are a rich and diverse data source providing the research and education communities with keys to decoding the living world—past, present, and future. For hundreds of years biological collections have inspired and informed science, but their promise has never been greater than it is today. Part of that increase in scientific value can be attributed

___________________

² The Duke Lemur Center, Durham, North Carolina (fossil collections), or the Montgomery Botanical Center, Coral Gables, Florida (herbarium), are examples of living biodiversity collections that interact with in-house natural history collections.

simply to the steady growth in the collections over time, but other factors have played major roles in their value: the growing diversity of biological collections, the development of new technologies to study collections, and the explosion of digitization of collections over the past few decades.

Diversity of Biological Collections

Today’s biological collections are highly diverse—they exist in distributed physical locations and vary in size, taxonomic diversity, origin, the kinds of specimens and data generated, and how they are maintained and used (see Figure 1-1). Typically, a collection consists of physical groupings of living or preserved organisms and selected and curated parts of those organisms, such as tissue, blood, or DNA (Ankeny, 2019), together with the comprehensive data associated with the specimens. Many institutions house biological collections from multiple taxonomic groups from around the world and across multiple geological timescales. Other biological collections consist of genetically modified microbes, plants, vertebrates, or invertebrates used for their diversity in genotypes, phenotypes, and physiological functions, regardless of where they originated. Variety in collections and how they are used is a recurring theme throughout this report. While this report covers only certain kinds of collections (see section on the scope of the report), collections can range in size from millions of specimens in large collections to smaller, project-based³ collections. They are housed in natural history or science museums, botanical gardens, universities, biological resource or stock centers, or private or even small collections of the sort that result from the efforts of one or a few investigators working on a single project. The scientific literature is replete with research made possible only, or primarily, because of biological collections and their unique combination of biological material and associated data. Examples of specific ways in which biological collections contribute to research and education can be found throughout this report, with unique contributions highlighted in this chapter and in Boxes 2-1, 2-2, 3-1, 3-2, 4-1, 4-5, and 5-1.

This tremendous diversity is both the single greatest asset of collections and the single biggest challenge they face. There is no one-size-fits-all solution for the myriad kinds of, and management approaches to, biological collections. Even the term “biological collection” often eludes a succinct description. For this report, the committee focused on collections developed for research, although

___________________

³ Project-based biological collections (sometimes called ad hoc collections) are those generated for a specific research study. They usually do not continue to grow once the research concludes, and they typically lack funding for long-term maintenance or dedicated facilities to house them if the principal investigator retires or moves to a new institution, leaving the collection behind. Depending on quality and funding, some project-based collections may be maintained by their host institutions for new research purposes or transferred to a more comprehensive long-term repository.

many research collections are used for formal and informal science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education.⁴

Digitization of Biological Collections

Digitization, or the conversion of specimen information to digital formats, including high-resolution images and genetic sequence data, has improved the value and usability of biological collections in a number of ways. For instance, it provides quick, easy, and inexpensive access to millions of specimens as well as to myriad associated data for any users with an Internet connection (Soltis, 2017). As observed with living stock collections, such as the microbe collections listed in the Global Catalogue of Microorganisms (GCM),⁵ the surge of available digital information for natural history collections is resulting in an increase of users of these collections and will undoubtedly spur research innovations in all disciplines of science (see Chapter 5). The countless available databases linked to specimens extend the concept of biological collections and enable novel

___________________

⁴ In this report the committee adopts the NSF definition of STEM, which includes mathematics, natural science, engineering, computer and information science, and the social and behavioral sciences—psychology, economics, sociology, and political science (NSF, 2018).

⁵ See http://gcm.wfcc.info.

specimen-based and new data-driven lines of scientific inquiry. The accessibility of databases of biological information mobilizes both basic and applied research (Nelson and Ellis, 2018) and has led to Nobel Prize–winning discoveries (see Box 2-1 and McCluskey, 2017).

The digitization of biological collections has also revolutionized the ability to distribute and share information from these collections. For centuries, scientists wanting to study a particular specimen from a natural history collection had to visit the place where it was held or have the specimen sent to them, leaving the item susceptible to loss or damage (Olsen, 2015). Today, the coordinated worldwide efforts to digitize biological collections and associated data (e.g., Integrated Digitized Biocollections⁶ (iDigBio) funded through the NSF Advancing Digitization of Biodiversity Collections⁷ (ADBC) program, and the European Distributed System of Scientific Collections⁸ and Innovation and Consolidation for Large Scale Digitisation of Natural Heritage⁹ program) provide access to rich sources of site- and species-specific data through data aggregators (e.g., Global Biodiversity Information Facility,¹⁰ iDigBio, and GCM), which fuel innovative thinking (see Chapter 5). The advent of advanced technologies and computerized methods augments the physical specimens in biological collections with a wealth of digitized data as well as derived resources and metadata, both physical and digital.

These new approaches to generating, storing, and sharing specimens and their associated data not only enable specimen-based research but also make possible new approaches to solving complex global problems. Researchers have spoken of this as the “holistic” (Cook et al., 2016) or “extended specimen” concept (Webster, 2017) (see Figure 1-2). For users of living collections, genetic stocks act as repositories and distributors of biological specimens and their derived genotypic and phenotypic data and serve as a central hub for wide-ranging research communities. A specimen’s aggregated data can be combined “to form an information-rich network for exploring Earth’s biota across taxonomic, temporal and spatial scales” as recently noted in a report from the Biodiversity Collections Network (Thiers et al., 2019, p. 2).

The types of data that can be collected and their potential uses are beyond current imagination in terms of size, quality, complexity, and value. The “extended specimen” concept opens the way to more opportunities, but implementing this concept requires both connecting with the research that uses the specimens and surmounting both technical and sociological issues of enabling and maintaining the linkage and inclusivity of the extended information through digital connections. Given the immense number of sources of digitized biological information from all kinds of biological collections, mechanisms to inventory and evaluate the capabilities of biological collections in the United States and abroad are needed. This is a daunting challenge in a historically siloed world. Garnering,

___________________

⁶ See https://www.idigbio.org.

⁷ See https://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503559.

⁸ See https://www.dissco.eu.

⁹ See https://icedig.eu.

¹⁰ See https://www.gbif.org.

organizing, and aggregating this essential information is key to realizing a digital revolution. Harnessing the expansion of digital tools and technologies—online through accessible databases—empowers researchers to forge new links and open new avenues of inquiry, broadens education opportunities at all levels, and gives us the tools to embrace globalization.

The Value of Today’s—and Tomorrow’s—Biological Collections

The wealth and diversity of biological collections and their extended networks make it possible to approach issues of global importance holistically, bridging cultural and knowledge gaps. But biological collections also have catalyzed scientific discovery across a wide variety of fields, from medicine and public health to agriculture, ecology, evolutionary biology, and global change. For example, genetic stock collections of plants, insects, and microorganisms played a central role in advances in the field of genetics and applications to plant and animal agriculture (NRC, 1993a).

Biological collections provide a fundamental underpinning for a tremendous amount of basic research in the biological sciences (see Chapter 2). Consider, for instance, the revolutionary genome-editing technique known as CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats). CRISPR has vastly expanded the genetic resources available in living collections and advanced the applications of biotechnology in medicine, agriculture, and conservation. Furthermore, the development of CRISPR was in part the result of research on materials sourced from living microbe collections (Ishino et al., 1987; Jinek et al., 2012). More generally, decades of groundbreaking life science research were only made possible because of the availability of high-quality living stocks and model organisms (McKie, 2017; see also Box 2-1).

Biological collections also help scientists predict and respond to a rapidly changing world. They have the unique capacity to validate existing research endeavors, reveal large-scale temporal patterns, and allow the retracing of environmental disturbances over time. For example, recent important insights into the effects of climate change on the distribution of mountain and desert organisms have been the result of comparisons of biological collections sampled and compared across a century of environmental change (Grinnell Resurvey Project;¹¹Shaffer et al., 1998). Sometimes the connection between the biological collection and an outcome is reasonably straightforward, as when paleontologists study the fossils in a collection to gain insight into the evolution of a species or biologists use historical collections of plants or animals to understand how the geographic distribution of a species has changed over time. A recent example of the latter was research on the endangered Poweshiek skipperling (see Box 1-6).

The ability to collect vital, invaluable clues on disease patterns in humans, animals, and crops also depends on well-documented archived or reference biological collections (Ristaino, 2002). In many cases, analyses of both living stock and natural history collections are essential for public health officials to

___________________

¹¹ See http://mvz.berkeley.edu/Grinnell/pubs.html.

identify emerging pathogens and develop preparedness strategies to mitigate the spread of disease around the world (Shrivastava et al., 2018; Yanagihara et al., 2014). This report was produced in the middle of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) global pandemic, which provides a timely example of how living and natural history collections infrastructure can be integrated to detect, describe, and mitigate emerging infectious diseases. During outbreaks and pandemics, living stock collections, such as the American Type Culture Collection and some of the government contracts they manage,¹² maintain and distribute virus strains and associated materials for basic research and development of diagnostic tests, therapeutics, vaccines, and detection methods. What is less obvious is the value of continuously using natural history collections infrastructure to better understand pathogen emergence on a global scale (Cook et al., 2020; DiEuliis et al., 2016;

___________________

¹² The Biodefense and Emerging Infectious Resources has been funded in whole or in part with federal funds from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, under Contract No. HHSN272201600013C and the International Reagent Resource has been funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dunnum et al., 2017). Natural history collections are an essential resource for studying pathogen hosts and their spatial and temporal distribution (Harmon et al., 2019).

Many applications of biological collections also rely on making connections that are less than obvious, such as the use of pollen collections to help identify “Baby Doe,” a young girl whose body was found in a plastic bag washed up on a Massachusetts shore (see Box 1-7).

Biological collections can inspire wonder, curiosity, and connectivity to nature in young and old, scientists and non-scientists alike, through formal

and informal learning (see Chapter 3). Without biological collections, educators would lose an exceptional resource for training generations of scientists as well as enhancing both scientific and STEM literacy (Cook et al., 2014; Lacey et al., 2017; NASEM, 2016, 2018d). Integrating the use of biological collections into formal and informal education builds competencies in applied and pure research, data collection and analysis (data literacy), and core biological principles. Moreover, collections introduce students and early-career scientists to extensive and readily available resources that they can explore and use to innovate and develop new lines of inquiry.

One way to understand the value and promise of biological collections is to envision what could happen if there were not a renewed and expanded commitment to maintain the diversity of biological collections and promote their use. Significant domains of basic and applied research would certainly be hindered. Living collections, because of the nature of their maintenance, are particularly vulnerable to inconsistent preservation and, as such, would be irreparably damaged. The loss of genetic stock collections, each a centralized source of materials for a global research community, would irreparably sever the connection between past, present, and future research needs of thousands of research labs that rely on them. Researchers would have to revert to peer-to-peer exchanges, which would greatly hamper long-term availability and quality control, and many advances that cannot even be imagined today would never be made.

Connecting Biological Collections to Create Broad Impacts

There is a growing recognition that integrated global initiatives that apply diverse perspectives, institutions, and resources to prevent and respond to issues of high international priority such as emerging infectious disease, biodiversity loss, food security, invasive species, or climate change are a key approach to achieving an effective and lasting response (Cunningham et al., 2017; Johnson et al., 2011; Machalaba et al., 2015; Myers, 2018). If they were more fully connected across diverse disciplines, biological collections could play a much larger role in these initiatives (Dunnum et al., 2017). Biological collections can provide a platform with which to examine facts, deepen knowledge, and generate innovative solutions to these emerging challenges. More than ever, the community of users could take advantage of the biological collections infrastructure to develop a flexible, distributed, and coordinated network of biological and informatics resources to address research and educational mandates. For instance, biological collections could provide valuable, irreplaceable resources that could contribute to at least six of NSF’s 10 Big Ideas (see Box 1-8).¹³

CHALLENGES

Despite their important role as critical infrastructure for research and education and the promise detailed above, biological collections are in jeopardy.

___________________

¹³ See https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/big_ideas.

They are consistently undervalued and often underfunded. Each year brings new reports of large and small collections threatened with budget cuts or closure (Deng, 2015; Lambert, 2019b). The frequency of such reports provides evidence of a growing issue that needs the immediate attention of scientific decision makers and funders alike. In spite of the broad and varied nature of biological collections, the committee identified many common issues, opportunities, and challenges faced by all. Several of these challenges are related to funding in one way or another. But if one looks beyond this basic issue and asks why funding is such a problem, other challenges emerge. Many of these fall under two broad categories: a lack of recognition of the value of collections, and issues with coordination, integration, and accessibility.

Challenge: Lack of Recognition of the Value of Collections

A consistent challenge facing biological collections is a lack of awareness of the value of these collections to scientific research, innovation, and education and missed opportunities to take advantage of this key infrastructure. Despite the rich history of research, discovery, learning, and innovation built on biological collections, they remain a treasure trove of untapped knowledge because both their contribution and importance are often not widely appreciated or fully comprehended. Natural history collections have been falsely regarded as drawers full of quaint but irrelevant old specimens by some, but well-curated collections contain a temporal record of specimens that have been studied and annotated by generations of scientists. Such collections need to be actively growing, embracing new kinds of specimens, and adopting new technologies to extend their value. There may also be a misconception that the use of “classical” or living model organisms is waning (Hunter, 2008; Jarrett and McCluskey, 2019). In fact, in the past decade, there has been a surge in the distribution of model organisms by living stock collections, which are now offering new materials such as genomic DNA, arrayed strains, and insertion or disruption mutant strains or libraries generated using targeted mutation techniques such as CRISPR. The value of biological collections could be made clearer through targeted initiatives with experts in education, policy, and communication. Ultimately, the collections community needs to improve its ability to communicate the importance of specimens in research and education to a wider audience, especially to funders and decision makers.

Challenge: Biological Collections Infrastructure Taken for Granted

Like all scientific advances produced by the research enterprise, the nation’s biological collections require robust resources and infrastructure to maintain them. The physical, digital, and intellectual capital of this infrastructure underlies every aspect of management of, and access to, collections. However, the overall infrastructure that supports biological collections and makes them accessible to the research and education communities is, at best, underappreciated and, at worst, ignored—often at their collective peril. Many funders simply fail

to recognize the importance of making a long-term commitment to the infrastructure that is needed to maintain, grow, and make biological collections available, in much the same way that oceanographic research vessels support ocean science. Combined with a scarcity of funding, the lack of a long-term commitment or plan for this infrastructure (see Chapter 4) creates a situation where funding for biological collections is often insufficient and unpredictable. As discussed in detail in Chapter 4, priceless and irreplaceable research materials and records of the world’s biodiversity are at great risk from everything from outright disaster and federally mandated shutdown to the simple failure of environmental control systems. Changing institutional priorities can be equally

devastating, sometimes resulting in collections being slowly shuttered or even discarded (see Box 1-9). Every collection that is lost means losing years of work and invested resources as well as a skilled workforce, which could in turn lead to major missed opportunities and a decrease in scientific competitiveness for U.S. researchers (Boundy-Mills et al., 2016). Perhaps the worst loss of all, however, is the lost connection to Earth’s rich history of life and the knowledge necessary to address pressing societal challenges. If biological collections are to maintain—and increase—their value to science and society in the coming years, careful attention will need to be paid to enhancing collections for future

research needs and preparing for the loss of infrastructure or expert workforces through retirement or staff attrition.

Challenge: Clear Metrics to Evaluate Biological Collections

Interest and demand for the clear and robust evaluation of research institutions are rising nationally and globally. However, measuring the impact of the nation’s biological collections on research and education is difficult because it requires the same stringent standards expected to produce credible, robust scientific research in general. Biological collections lack the resources—financial support, time, and expertise—to develop and implement evaluation plans and to collect and monitor data and information. In addition, there is no consensus on community-wide standards for evaluation and metrics.

Challenge: Coordination, Integration, and Accessibility

Another category of challenges relates to various coordination, integration, and accessibility issues. Historically, biological collections were developed independently of one another, and they have traditionally operated as independent collections, with relatively little coordination or integration among them. This fragmented nature limits the usefulness of the national system of biological collections, leaving potential users of the system often uncertain about what is available and where they can find materials of interest. A lack of coordination and integration both within and across different collections also hinders research involving multiple collections.

Challenge: Incomplete Inventory of Existing Living Stock and Natural History Collections

The precise number and extent of biological collections in the United States are unknown, in part because there is no system-wide process for identifying and cataloging these collections. The number of biological collections is in flux as new collections are created and existing ones are transferred, combined, and discarded. In addition, there is no mechanism to track either the large number of project-based collections that are housed in individual research labs or privately owned collections (which are not covered in this report), which may be eventually accessioned into larger repositories. The extent or value of those collections is not known. A related challenge is that the data associated with those collections, including images and genetic sequence data (see Chapter 5), will require new bioinformatic resources to digitize (if necessary) and publish the acquired data onto online repositories that are available to the research community.

Recent estimates suggest that there are about 1,800 natural history collections in the United States, representing about one-third of all global collections (Kemp, 2015). The most comprehensive list of natural history collections in the

United States, the iDigBio Collections Catalog that lists ~1,600 collections,¹⁴ is an advance over previous efforts, but it is static and not yet complete. Certain living stock collections have self-organized into federations, networks, and consortia, such as the World Federation for Culture Collections, the United States Culture Collection Network¹⁵ (USCCN), Crop Germplasm Committees,¹⁶ and the International Society for Biological and Environmental Repositories,¹⁷ with a growing number of registered collections. When researching the number of living stock collections for which information is available online, experts on the committee estimated that there is a minimum of 2,855 living stock collections in the United States. However, the number of living stock collections is likely grossly underestimated (e.g., McCluskey, 2017), in part because of the diversity of these collections and the different research communities they serve. For example, there is no central registry of genetic stock collections or biological resource centers,¹⁸ which harbor untapped resources for basic research as well as medical, agricultural, and biotechnological applications (Wang and Lilburn, 2009). To start closing the gaps, the taxonomy group at the National Center for Biotechnology Information has created a platform to connect genetic sequence records to specimens of living organisms preserved in living stock collections and to vouchers—representative specimens stored for later examination—held in natural history collections (Sharma et al., 2018). However, without a comprehensive, systematic, and continuously updated inventory of all biological collections, the ability to effectively address the needs of these collections as a community is severely hindered.

Challenge: Limited Community-Wide Coordinating Mechanisms

Many biological collections in the United States and around the world remain largely disconnected. Often, because of geographic or institutional divisions and a lack of funding or awareness about the value of their research materials, project-based collections are in temporary or even permanent storage, usually in the care of the principal investigator funded for the original research. Under such conditions, these resources are not available to inform the wider research community. On a larger scale, creating a coordinating network, developing a common vision, and communicating the value of a network of biological collections to the scientific community, funders, and society as a whole are hampered by the fact that researchers, curators, collection managers, and users are spread across many institutions and often balance multiple responsibilities. This lack of a common vision directly affects their ability to develop a strategy for preserving, growing, cataloging, digitizing, and using collections. Recent support

___________________

¹⁴ See https://www.idigbio.org/portal/collections.

¹⁵ See http://www.usccn.org/Pages/default.aspx.

¹⁶ See https://www.ars-grin.gov/CGC.

¹⁷ See https://www.isber.org.

¹⁸ Institutions that store and maintain the subject materials of biological research and provide services related to these materials. They also collect and store data and information relevant to their holdings (Wang and Lilburn, 2009).

by NSF’s ADBC program has helped to unite the U.S. natural history collections community, across taxa and geography, in unprecedented ways; however, more can be accomplished.

VISION FOR THE NEXT DECADE

Many publications and contributions of individual experts were invaluable in guiding the work of the committee, particularly in regard to the distinct, perhaps unique, needs of different types of biological collections. The committee’s conclusions and recommendations represent the deliberations of its members, who recognize both the challenges and power of a diverse national system of biological collections and the reality that budget issues necessitate trade-offs in programmatic priorities. The committee also recognizes the importance of the historical roles of biological collections while envisioning and expanding new functionalities and capabilities to meet 21st-century needs.

The significance of biological collections as research infrastructure continues to grow in ways that were unanticipated 20 or even 10 years ago. With strategic thinking and steady resource investments, biological collections could continue to be at the heart of scientific advances and education for the foreseeable future. Looking ahead, the committee developed a common vision for how best to support, promote, and utilize the biological collections community over the next decade:

With this vision, the major aim of this report is to stimulate a national discussion regarding the goals and strategies needed to ensure that U.S. biological collections not only thrive, but continue to grow throughout the 21st century and beyond. This expansive endeavor requires creative leadership that encompasses a wide range of perspectives and expertise to identify the needs of collections infrastructure and ensure the collections’ sustainability and growth.

How can this vision be realized? In this report, the committee first explores the ways that biological collections have contributed to society by advancing scientific discovery and innovation, enriching education, connecting nonprofessional communities to nature and science, and preserving Earth’s natural science heritage (see Chapters 2 and 3). Then the committee addresses how the biological collections community is working toward a common vision in light of today’s challenges, recognizing that the future success of the biological collections community—curators, collection managers, directors, and users of biological collections—depends on addressing four interrelated issues:

1. upgrading and maintaining the physical infrastructure and the growth of collections (see Chapter 4);
2. developing and maintaining the tools and processes needed to transform digital data into an easily accessible, integrated platform as cyberinfrastructure increases in complexity (see Chapter 5);
3. recruiting, training, and supporting the workforce of the future (see Chapter 6); and
4. ensuring long-term financial sustainability (see Chapter 7).

Realizing this vision will require enhanced communication and collaboration within the biological collections community and beyond (see Chapter 8). The committee recognizes the lack of a common place where issues that span the collections community can be addressed. For curators, there is no single association or professional society dedicated to creating opportunities for networking, collaborating, recognizing, supporting, and promoting the collective research enterprise that is supported by biological collections. Until recently, convening opportunities have been limited to either particular research disciplines that the collections serve (often taxonomically bounded) or to particular regional settings, which is not conducive to the dissemination of information and resources pertinent to the advancement of specimen-based research and curatorial best practices.

In contrast, the biological collections community has various networks to address concerns about the management, care, and distribution of biological collections. These networks can ease the way to establishing strong guidelines, providing training, developing best practices, and facilitating the use of collections in collaborative research as well as in formal and informal education. Networks also provide a platform for strategic thinking and developing solutions to problems of broad societal importance. For instance, the Society for the Preservation of Natural History Collections has made tremendous progress over the past three decades in building a community-driven organization with a common voice. Certain living stock collections have also been successful in establishing national and global networks, such as USCCN (McCluskey et al., 2016; Wu et al., 2017) and could serve as a model for other biological collections. Collections for which the data are digitized and published as part of such national and international networks can also benefit from services that allow these collections not only to gauge the accuracy and completeness of their data but also to comply with relevant legal requirements such as the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits Arising from their Utilization to the Convention on Biological Diversity¹⁹ (Nagoya Protocol) (see Box 1-10).

These are compelling arguments for the creation of a common place to develop a unified vision, exchange ideas, pool resources, and in other ways cultivate a thriving biological collections community. To facilitate the realization of this vision, this report explores and offers recommendations for

___________________

¹⁹ See https://www.cbd.int/abs.

community-wide, collaborative mechanisms, such as the creation of an Action Center for Biological Collections and the development of a Decadal Plan to guide major investments in the nation’s biological collections (see Chapter 8). While collaboration is essential in research, evidence suggests that collaboration dynamics and outcomes vary greatly across institutions, fields, and missions and even in the motives among members of individual research teams in ways that could create barriers to innovation (Bozeman et al., 2013; Katz and Martin, 1997). Along with the biological collections community, professional societies and funding agencies will play a critical role in providing leadership to achieve this vision, which will also require sensitivity to inclusivity to engage the community in ways that ensure all voices are heard.

This page intentionally left blank.