The (bio)diversity of science reflects the interests of society

For ecologists to develop robust generalizations and principles, a broad taxonomic and geographic spread of research is required, but, in practice, most generalizations are based on the research of individual scientists and groups, and their choice of study organism is affected by many different factors. We analyzed researchers' choice to assess potential biases. In particular, by comparing the relative representation of species in the scientific literature and on the Internet, we explored how the choice of study organism is influenced by societal interests. While there is a strong positive correlation between output in the scientific literature and on the web, deviations from this general pattern suggest that, when compared with societal biases, research agendas are more directly influenced by economic priorities and practical limitations, and less by geographical and sociopolitical barriers. Although the range of biological research reflects the needs of society, there are still large taxonomic and geographic gaps. By focusing on specific groups, we are developing an in-depth knowledge of certain taxa, but if ecologists are to develop generalizations, we may need to widen our research scope.

[1]  Herman Strecker,et al.  Butterflies and Moths of North America , 2009 .

[2]  Andy Purvis,et al.  Phylogeny and Conservation , 2009 .

[3]  John Grace,et al.  The best papers are the boldest , 2007 .

[4]  Michel Loreau,et al.  Diversity without representation , 2006, Nature.

[5]  C. Heip,et al.  Biodiversity Research Still Grounded , 2006, Science.

[6]  Philip Ball,et al.  Prestige is factored into journal ratings , 2006, Nature.

[7]  M. Guillén,et al.  THE GLOBAL DIGITAL DIVIDE : ECONOMIC , POLITICAL , AND SOCIOLOGICAL DRIVERS OF CROSS-NATIONAL INTERNET USE , 2005 .

[8]  Y. Baskin Under Ground: How Creatures of Mud and Dirt Shape Our World , 2005 .

[9]  Ş. Procheş,et al.  The world's biogeographical regions: cluster analyses based on bat distributions , 2005 .

[10]  Brian D. Cameron,et al.  Trends in the Usage of ISI Bibliometric Data: Uses, Abuses, and Implications , 2005 .

[11]  S. Nee Phylogeny and Conservation: Phylogenetic futures after the latest mass extinction , 2005 .

[12]  D. King The scientific impact of nations , 2004, Nature.

[13]  Rick Bennett,et al.  Trends in the Evolution of the Public Web: 1998 - 2002 , 2003, D Lib Mag..

[14]  G. Mace,et al.  How Diana climbed the ratings at the zoo , 1998, Nature.

[15]  R. May The Scientific Wealth of Nations , 1997, Science.

[16]  M. Sagoff On the value of endangered and other species , 1996, Environmental management.

[17]  Kevin J. Gaston,et al.  Taxonomy of taxonomists , 1992, Nature.

[18]  Desmond Morris,et al.  The naked ape : a zoologist's study of the human animal , 1968 .

[19]  S. Mcneill,et al.  Butterflies and Moths , 1964 .