Search for: All records

Human implicit biases towards visually appealing and familiar stimuli are well documented and rooted in our brains’ reward systems. For example, humans are drawn to charismatic, familiar organisms, but less is known about whether such biases permeate research choices among biologists, who strive for objectivity. The factors driving research effort, such as aesthetics, logistics and species’ names, are poorly understood. We report that, from 1965 to 2020, nearly half of the variation in publication trends among 293 North American male passerine and near-passerine birds was explained by three factors subject to human bias: aesthetic salience (visual appeal), range size (familiarity) and the number of universities within ranges (accessibility). We also demonstrate that endangered birds and birds featured on journal covers had higher aesthetic salience, and birds with eponymous names were studied about half as much as those not named after humans. Thus, ornithological knowledge, and decisions based thereon, is heavily skewed towards fancy, familiar species. This knowledge disparity feeds a cycle of public interest, environmental policy, conservation, funding opportunities and scientific narratives, shrouding potentially important information in the proverbial plumage of drab, distant, disregarded species. The unintended consequences of biologists’ choices may exacerbate organismal inequalities amid biodiversity declines and limit opportunities for scientific inquiry.