Skip to main content
ARS Home » Midwest Area » Madison, Wisconsin » Vegetable Crops Research » Research » Publications at this Location » Publication #318490
Title: Response to Pilaar Burch and Graham

Author
item PAULI, JONATHAN - University Of Wisconsin
item Steffan, Shawn
item NEWSOME, SETH - University Of New Mexico

Submitted to: Bioscience
Publication Type: Review Article
Publication Acceptance Date: 9/16/2015
Publication Date: 10/1/2015
Publication URL: http://handle.nal.usda.gov/10113/61943
Citation: Pauli, J.N., Steffan, S.A., Newsome, S.D. 2015. Response to Pilaar Birch and Graham. Bioscience. 65(10):953-954. doi: 10.1093/biosci/biv134.

Interpretive Summary: This letter is a reply to the letter sent by Pilaar Birch & Graham, in response to our original call for the creation of IsoBank (an indexed, searchable database for isotopic data). Impact Statement: The impact of a global archive for isotopic data, modeled after GenBank, will influence sciences ranging from agricultural ecology to climate change ecology. IsoBank will also welcome isotopic data from non-biotic spheres, such as limnology and astro-geology, further widening the breadth of science that such an archive would serve.

Technical Abstract: We are delighted that our call for IsoBank, a database for isotopes, has generated interest among our colleagues, and we applaud Pilaar Birch and Graham in their letter for offering a potential repository, Neotoma Paleoecological Database. Their suggestion is promising, and should be explored. We encourage continued discussions of potential sites, including Neotoma, as well as museum-based archives that house both modern and ancient specimens. Any archive should support opportunities to link across these databases, and once the home for IsoBank has been identified, there are many details to be considered, most prominently are those relating to data acquisition and metadata indexing. One point not developed in either letters relates to data acquisition that ensures IsoBank becomes the central source of isotopic data. Data acquisition can rely on both incentives and consequences, applied at various stages along the research pipeline, to reinforce individual PIs to furnish isotopic data. First, federal granting agencies require data management plans that include data access, and funded projects involving isotopes can be directed to IsoBank. Mass spectrometry labs that process large number of fee-for-service samples, might also have a role in aiding with data acquisition for IsoBank. For example, subsidies could be provided to offset cost of analysis to PIs that permit their data to be uploaded after analysis. Finally, IsoBank should follow GenBank’s approach and partner with editorial boards at journals to require authors to upload data prior to publication. We thank Pilaar Burch and Graham for continuing the discussion and offering a candidate site for IsoBank. We agree that such an isotopic data repository has tremendous potential in uniting ostensibly disparate fields in biology. We look forward to future conversations with those who share interest in developing a public repository for isotopic data.