Research on charismatic species, such as cheetahs and tigers, often leads to significant career benefits but also fosters competitive and exclusionary practices.
A study highlights how this focus can disadvantage women and early-career researchers, particularly in regions where these species are native.
The findings suggest a need to broaden scientific success metrics to include community engagement and policy impact to mitigate these issues.
Biologists often form deep bonds with the species they study. For some, that relationship begins early in their careers and shapes decades of research. The connection can be personal, even affectionate, but it can also create tensions when others set their sights on the same species.
In biology, certain plants and animals are considered “charismatic species” by the general public. They capture the public imagination through beauty, uniqueness, or cultural significance. Think giant pandas, tigers, or orchids.
Many scientists are drawn to these charismatic species, but that does not always mean they have the opportunity to study them. Competition can be fierce in some academic fields.
We conducted research on these charismatic species, to understand how this field may exclude some academics and give the monopoly on research to others.
Research monopolisation can have several negative effects. For instance, samples may be less commonly shared between scientists. It may even impede an academic’s progress. This can be in the form of sabotaging a competitor’s work, stealing creative ideas and performing biased peer review of funding proposals and publications.
This behaviour doesn’t just harm individual researchers. It can weaken scientific integrity, stifle creativity and drive talented people out of academia. And while our study focused on biology, the patterns are likely echoed across competitive academic fields where prestige and resources are limited.
Charismatic species are easy to love and they’re also good for science. Research on these species attracts more funding, more media coverage, and more space in prestigious journals. But popularity comes with a cost. Our new study reveals that working on these species often fuels competition and, in some cases, fosters exclusionary behaviour.
Over 18 months, we examined academic exclusion in the biological sciences: where established researchers try to prevent potential competitors from studying their preferred animal or plant. We surveyed 826 academics across 90 countries and analysed 800 scientific papers.
The results were striking. We found a positive correlation between a species’ charisma and the impact and volume of scientific outputs. That highlights the benefits of studying such species for a researcher’s prestige and career prospects. But studying charismatic species also tended to increase the likelihood of negative workplace experiences. Younger colleagues, women and researchers based in the regions where the species actually live were the ones who suffered.
Nearly half (46 per cent) of survey participants said they had encountered some form of research monopolisation. Respondents linked charismatic species to greater difficulty obtaining permits or samples, strained relationships with colleagues, and cliquey work environments.
We also found a striking imbalance in participation. Researchers from universities in North America and Europe frequently studied species in Africa, South America and Asia — but the reverse was rarely true. For instance, the eastern barred bandicoot (Perameles gunnii) occurs and was only studied in Australia. The striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis) occurs in the US, where it was studied. But the Malayan culogo (Galeopterus variegatus) was commonly studied by institutions outside Malaysia, as was the aye aye (Paradoxurus hermaphroditus) from Madagascar. This pattern was less pronounced for non-charismatic species.
The result is a skewed scientific landscape. Non-charismatic species, despite their ecological importance, are often underfunded and overlooked.
For those who secure access to charismatic species, the career payoffs can be enormous. Working on them tends to result in more publications, higher citation rates and more opportunities for international collaboration.
The largest collaborative effort we found was for the charismatic cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus), with a total of 50 authors, 37 institutions and 21 countries on one paper. This effort was rewarded with a journal impact factor of 11.1 and 193 citations, showing the benefit to be gained from collaborating. These advantages feed into the academic reward system, where prestige and productivity often dictate career progression.
A journal with an impact factor of 2-3 is considered solid in most fields, 5-10 is highly regarded, and 15+ is exceptional, usually limited to big multidisciplinary journals like Nature or Science. Only a small fraction of academics (perhaps the top 5 per cent-10 per cent) regularly publish in those very high impact journals. Citations vary hugely by discipline and career stage. A typical early-career researcher might have 20-100 citations total, whereas established mid-career academics often have a few hundred to a few thousand.
Our study also highlights the darker side of this system. Early-career scientists and women reported higher rates of exclusion, including refusals to collaborate, appropriation of research ideas and even harassment.
Gender inequities are particularly stark, despite the biological sciences having a much more even gender balance than most other science fields. Women were less likely to participate in international collaborations, which are strongly linked to career advancement. And when women did lead studies, their papers received fewer citations than those with male first or last authors.
The first author is usually the person who did most of the hands-on work — designing the study, collecting and analysing data, and writing the first draft. The last author is typically the senior researcher or group leader who supervised the project, secured funding and guided the work conceptually. In total, of all first authors, 69 per cent were men, and of all last authors, 81 per cent were men. Male dominance differed depending on the study species, where charismatic mammal species scored relatively high.
Productivity in academia manifests itself in publication rates, publication visibility and citation patterns. These can have a cumulative advantage and lead to substantial inequality among researchers. In our survey, 51 per cent of female respondents reported gender-based discrimination.
Editorial boards also play a role. Many biodiversity conservation journals have male-dominated boards and a bias towards publishing studies on charismatic species. Species preference intertwines with gender inequity. For instance, studies on large carnivores are known to be historically male-dominated, and this association may give men a head start in their careers.
What can be done? One solution is to broaden how scientific success is measured. Instead of focusing so heavily on academic output — publications, citations and journal impact factors — institutions and funders could also value contributions such as community engagement, public communication and policy impact.
This may reduce cumulative advantage in science and increase a sense of fairness, hopefully reversing the subtle ways in which organisational logistics serve to perpetuate disparities in academic institutions.
Such measures are becoming increasingly important in biodiversity conservation, where connecting science with society is essential. By shifting incentives, we may reduce the negative side-effects that arise from competition.
Scientists themselves also have a role to play. Instead of racing to publish first, research groups could coordinate their work, share data and agree on joint publication strategies. Collaboration over competition could benefit everyone, not least the species that need protecting.
Charisma may help a species capture attention, but it shouldn’t determine who gets to study it, or who gets to succeed in science.
Laura Tensen, Assistant Professor, University of Greifswald
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.