It's easy.
The first question, the general question on biodiversity is: how many species are there on earth?
Yes, we do not know.
Another one might be: how many species names are correctly given, in other words, behind each name is there really one species or are there more, or less (the problem of synonimies)?
Here's another one: are rare species endangered? Or: is being represented by few individuals invariably a sign of low health for a species? The species present on islands are usually represented by few individuals in respect to those on continents...

- What are the main centres of biodiversity on the planet? (in this question I am not speaking just of the obvious species, I refer to ALL biodiversity, but the 10 million grant is not enough)
- What is the role of islands in enhancing biodiversity?
- Do islands re-distribute the biodiversity they contribute to form?
- Does island biogeography apply also to the marine environment?
- What is the percentage of endemics in all islands of the planet?
I can go on like that for many pages. Just another one:
How many scientists are able to recognise a new species if they kick one? I know the answer: less and less.

Note: most of these questions require A LOT of money to be answered. More than 10 million. Strange enough they are unanswered. It is suggestive that Martin came out with a question on life on Mars. We actually spent more, much more than 10 millions to answer this irrelevant question. What will change in our everyday life if we know that there is a life form on Mars? Nothing. And there is not. The questions I made above, especially the first one, are of vital importance for our well being, as the Rio convention acknowledged, but then the resources go to the search of little green men. Or to the Hubble telescope, so we can say that there is another galaxy out there. Biodiversity research, in comparison, receives peanuts. We have the right questions. How comes that we are so interested to discover if there is life out there and we are not so interested in the life down here? It is irrational. I know that the neighbour's grass is always greener than yours, but governments should act in a more rational way. Of course I know the reason: the guys who make rockets are powerful. The guys who recognise species are worthless. So, OK, let's play this game. But I do not hope that somebody will say, wow, these are nice questions, let's invest our money in them and stop financing a scientific project that has required billions for decades and never yielded a single positive datum (the search for life outside our planet). Let's face it: we are not influent enough.

Ferdinando Boero.