Rihanna Spotted Heading to César Restaurant in Paris After Céline Dion Concert
By Rodrigo Santos Andrade
There’s a hidden bias affecting what we know – and don’t know – about nature
visibility comment0 event October 18, 2026 timer 19:42
What drives scientists to uncover nature’s mysteries is curiosity. But what are they curious about?
S. Mahdi H. Miangoleh/UnsplashOur knowledge about life on Earth is built through research on how organisms function, evolve and interact with each another and the environment. Yet there are far more species on our planet than scientists can study in detail.
So how should scientists decide which species to focus on? Fairly representing all species seems like a useful approach. It’s like predicting an election result: we can’t interview every citizen, so we need a sample that truly represents the overall population.
What drives scientists to uncover nature’s mysteries is curiosity. So, the organisms chosen for research are determined by what makes scientists most curious. And that’s causing a problem with fair representation.
In our new research, we examined research in ecology and evolution (an umbrella term for biological sciences outside biomedicine) to understand which animals are most studied and why.
Our results suggest emotion plays a bigger role in research choices than scientists usually admit.
Which animals are studied?
Our world is mostly filled with invertebrates: creatures such as bugs, spiders, worms and slugs. Vertebrates (amphibians, birds, fish, mammals and reptiles) make up only 5% of all animal species on Earth. So, if scientists want to represent animals fairly in their work, most research should be on invertebrates.
To understand how scientists’ time is spent researching the diversity of animals, we analysed almost 1.4 million scientific articles from more than 600 journals. Unsurprisingly, we found that more than half of these articles focused on vertebrates, demonstrating a huge bias in what scientists prefer to study.
Our results also demonstrate things haven’t improved in over two decades (when this bias was first discovered), and in some cases have gotten worse. For example, the focus on fish in marine and freshwater biology research increased from 35.8% of articles in 2001 to 49.7% in 2025. This was all at the expense of the largest group of marine creatures, aquatic invertebrates such as molluscs, crustaceans, corals and more.
The bias we found was compounded by social media and news coverage, where popular animal groups attracted more attention from other scientists and the general public. Many scientists are therefore no different to everyone else in which animals they deem interesting or important.
Why does this happen?
Although many factors determine which research organisms scientists might select, emotions do play a significant role. Using an online survey, we asked 868 animal behaviour researchers about their experiences and preferences.
We found that popular groups in animal behaviour research, such as birds and mammals, were regarded more favourably than others, especially arachnids (such as spiders).
This is perhaps unsurprising as perceptions of animals are shaped early in childhood. Ingrained societal values – such as which animals are cute – tend to persist by the time someone becomes a scientist.
Fortunately, we found that familiarity breeds admiration. Participants that worked with a certain animal group tended to view that group more positively after their experience. In other words, they tried it and liked it.
Does it matter?
Studying the saliva of the Gila monster (a lizard) in the 1980s paved the way for recently developed weight loss drugs such as Ozempic. Research on snake, spider and scorpion toxins is being used for new pain-relieving drugs. The discovery of green fluorescent proteins from bioluminescent jellyfish in the 1960s led to the 2008 Nobel Prize because it sparked a scientific revolution by making it possible to tag individual cells.
These examples show that scientific advancement often requires serendipity and time. It disregards whether the organisms involved are charismatic. Creatures commonly seen as ugly, disgusting, or dangerous (which they rarely are) can be as, if not more, useful for society as fluffy, pretty animals.
Our work indicates that society’s negative perceptions of certain organisms, which are often rooted in disconnection from nature and misinformation, are shared by the very scientists responsible for understanding biological processes and patterns. Understanding scientists’ choices matters because these decisions shape the direction of scientific progress.
We urgently need to shift our perception of animals because human-made effects are accelerating biodiversity losses. For example, insects are declining at unprecedented rates, but we know little (if anything) about most insect species. Many haven’t even been described and may go extinct before we even know they existed. This means we’ll lose not just the benefits they bring to ecosystems, but any benefits they may have held for humanity.
What can we do?
There is hope. Our research shows that when people spend more time with the “ugly” and “scary” animals, they often appreciate them more. Once people realise that all organisms (even spiders) play a vital part in ecosystems, it becomes a lot easier to give these overlooked creatures the attention they deserve.
Organisations like Invertebrates Australia and many social media influencers are already helping by showing just how fascinating and important invertebrates really are.
But we still need more support to reduce research biases, especially from governments and universities. They can make a huge difference by funding research on never-before studied species and neglected animal groups.
If nothing changes, we risk slowing progress because we’re drawn to what looks cute. Next time an animal video pops up on your feed, try sharing something beyond the fluffy favourites. The less glamorous species are just as essential and just as worthy of our curiosity.
Michael Kasumovic has received funding from the Australian Research Council. Pietro Pollo does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Tags: Academic Journalism, The Conversation, The Conversation Academic News
No Comments
