Drab and distant birds are studied less than their fancy-feathered friends

  1. Silas E. Fischer
  2. Joshua G. Otten
  3. Andrea M. Lindsay
  4. Donald B. Miles
  5. Henry M. Streby

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Human decisions are influenced by implicit biases, and scientists do not exist in an objectivity vacuum. Subconscious biases in scientists’ choices about which species to study may beget distorted knowledge bases and stagnant paradigms. Disparities in biological knowledge can result from bias in study species selection within a cycle of policymaking, funding, and publication, all subject to implicit biases. Here, we show that ornithological research in the USA and Canada is biased toward birds with greater aesthetic salience and those with larger breeding ranges and ranges that encompass more universities. We quantified components of aesthetic salience (e.g., color, pattern/contrast, body size) of 293 passerines and near-passerines based on empirically documented human visual preferences and investigated whether these components were associated with research effort. We also quantified each species’ breeding range size and the number of universities within that range. Accounting for phylogenetic relatedness, we found that these metrics of aesthetics, familiarity, and accessibility combined to explain 45% of the variation in the number of published papers about each species from 1965–2020. On average, birds in the top 10% of aesthetic salience were studied 3.0X more than birds in the bottom 10%, and publication numbers were predicted most strongly by color and pattern components of aesthetic salience. Birds in the top 10% of breeding range size and university abundance were studied 3.8X and 3.5X more often than species in the bottom 10% of those categories, respectively. Species listed as Endangered and those featured on journal covers have greater aesthetic salience scores than other species. We discuss how these biases may influence perceived relative value of species with respect to culture and conservation. The disparities in empirical knowledge we describe here perpetuate a positive feedback loop, thus widening the gap between the avian “haves” and “have-nots”, with some questions answered repeatedly while potentially critical discoveries are left undiscovered.

“All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” —George Orwell, Animal Farm (1945)

Article activity feed

  1. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/10719573.

    Summary and Strengths

    This study examines attributes that affect the selection of birds as study species and its subsequent impact on conservation funding and the perceived value of that species. The authors are particularly interested in biases that arise due to human visual preferences. They hypothesized that birds with greater aesthetic salience, geographic accessibility, and familiarity have been more well-studied than their counterparts. The authors conducted a bibliometric analysis of North American passerine/near-passerine birds that were the primary focal species for book and journal articles published between 1965 and 2020. Aligning with their hypothesis, the results indicate that species at the higher end of these attributes are more documented in publications.  

    The manuscript details the complex feedbacks between ornithological research, visual preference, conservation efforts and funding decisions, revealing how scientific bias accumulates. This study is the starting point for many more that explore other attributes of bird selection (behavior, value, vocalization) and a greater range of bird sizes and geographic ranges. The reviewers found the article to be interesting and novel as well as readable to a wide range of audiences. We would recommend this article for publication following minor revisions (as outlined below).    

    Major issues

    • The reviewers have not identified any major issues with the manuscript.  

    Minor issues

    • The reviewers suggest renaming the acronym for Aesthetic Salience Score (ASS) to one that is not potentially distracting. We suggest replacing score with value (i.e., ASV), using AS score, or another similar acronym. 

    • Although interesting and descriptive, the reviewers find paragraph 1 in the introduction to be unnecessary, and we believe that starting with the second paragraph may help the reader to clearly connect the issue of human value judgments and study species selection/conservation. Descriptive context from paragraph 1 may be integrated into other parts of the manuscript, such as discussing color preference in the methods since it was used to determine the aesthetic salience score. 

    • The reviewers would find it helpful if the authors would move Supplementary Table 1 to the main text. Much of the methods are referenced in the Supplementary Materials, which makes it difficult for the reader to know what and how aesthetic salience was measured. 

    • The reviewers would find it helpful if the authors included a list of bird species considered in the study in the Supplementary Materials. 

    • The reviewers suggest removing some unnecessary added context that distracts from their main argument. For example, we suggest removing/shortening the final paragraph in the discussion to free up space and add more detail within (1) the methods since a lot of the design is described in the supplemental materials, or (2) the conclusion to reinforce their claims. 

    • The reviewers recommend that the authors include limitations or alternative explanations in their Discussion to aid their argument. Some items we considered that weren't explicitly addressed include: 1) Is the location of a university a good measure of accessibility? Researchers often travel long distances to observe their study species. For example, a bird species could be within range of 10 universities but perhaps none of the researchers at those universities study that particular bird. 2) What is the impact of the geographic scope of this project, such as if the range were expanded to the tropics? How would a bird species' scores adjust, if at all? 

    Competing interests

    The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2023.10.26.560707v1 on bioRxiv