This was one of the better organised conferences I have been to in terms of efficiency in the refreshment breaks, but in retrospect I think that there was too long a session given over to the Street Fair and poster session on the first day and too little time for the breakouts on day 2.

In practice people had from 13.00 to 16.30 on the afternoon of Day 1 to have a good look at the Street Fair and posters. I felt that this was too long and interest was waning in the second half. It would have been better to have a shorter time for this and kept the momentum of speaker presentations going.

The breakout sessions were very short and it was difficult to have a discussion, summarise the points made and get the groups to agree on what was going to be put forward. In practice most groups just about managed to complete the first of these and the summary was done after the session by the coordinators. If time permitted what might have worked is to have another session, possibly only 1 hour, where the groups could examine the summary and agree on what was going to be put forward to the main symposium.

I agree:
"The breakout sessions were very short and it was difficult to have a discussion, summarise the points made and get the groups to agree on what was going to be put forward. In practice most groups just about managed to complete the first of these and the summary was done after the session by the coordinators. If time permitted what might have worked is to have another session, possibly only 1 hour, where the groups could examine the summary and agree on what was going to be put forward to the main symposium."

In my group (Engaging public, forcely joined groups of K-12 Biodiversity Education and Citizen science), the organizers named coordinators, who did not take part in the earlier online discussions, they did not know the content well, only very superficially parts of it. They focused narrowly on citizen science. I tried to tell about the broader and well justified conception of lifelong biodiversity education, but not with any good results. Most of those who came to the breakout group of engaging public did not take part in online discussions. Ad hoc they just started e.g. asking for definition of citizen science etc. It was an absurd situation. For months we had discussed and prepared for this meeting and the possibility for creating something of lasting value was just wasted.

But fortunately this reopened e-Biosphere 09 Online Conference Community (OCC) provides us a continuing possibility for cumulative and collaborative knowledge building and a new beginning for truth seeking dialogues.

My point is that humankind, conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of biodiversity will need broad general lifelong biodiversity education, not just narrow citizen science, that is part of that broader concept.

_________________
Dr. Mauri Ahlberg FLS
Professor of Biology and Sustainability Education
University of Helsinki, FINLAND

Dear Mauri,
It remains unclear to me how the group coordinators emerged. The gains of the OCC were not brought to bear on most breakout groups. Most issues already discussed to some level of consensus came out fresh again. Much time was wasted in search of acceptable definitions, meanings, etc. It was difficult to get a clear direction. That was unexpected after so many ideas had been exchanged on the OCC. Perhaps, those who took part actively in the OCC where not present in London, I am not sure. In spite of this minor problem, the conference was hugely successful; it paraded the best in biodiversity studies that have together channeled a path for a durable global register for biodiversity informatics without which sustainable development will be impossible to achieve.

I agree that the conference as whole was a success. I think that collaborative knowledge building before the conference was extremely useful. It has lasting value. It is very good that is archived and open to futher collaborative knowledge building.

Some people are afraid that taxonomists are becoming rarere, because of lack of funding. At the same time there is real need to educate people to use biodiversity sustainably. Without knowing species, it is impossible.

Regional, interconnected NatureGate Online Services (http://www.naturegate.net ) would be a perfect solution to give work and salary for taxonomists. In the Summer there was over one million users per month. On average , they used NatureGate Online Service over six minutes. At the same time public, ordinary citizens and decision makers, will become more aware and educated about, in and for biodiversity. Humanity ought to learn how to use biodiversity sustainably as soon as possible.

Linné invented binomial names for species. It has become a standard in biology, including biodiversity informatics. Eija and Jouko Lehmuskallio (2006 - 2008) have the patented system and method for identifying species. It would be ideal if this method would be accepted as a standard procedure in lifelong biodiversity (informatics) education at species level as soon as possiböe

_________________
Dr. Mauri Ahlberg FLS
Professor of Biology and Sustainability Education
University of Helsinki, FINLAND