The success of a scientist depends on their production of scientific papers and the impact factor of the journal in which they publish. Because most major scientific journals are published in English, success is related to publishing in this language. Currently, 98% of publications in science are written in English, including researchers from English as a Foreign Language (EFL) countries. Colombia is among the countries with the lowest English proficiency in the world. Thus, understanding the disadvantages that Colombians face in publishing is crucial to reducing global inequality in science. This paper quantifies the disadvantages that result from the language hegemony in scientific publishing by examining the additional costs that communicating in English creates in the production of articles. It was identified that more than 90% of the scientific articles published by Colombian researchers are in English, and that publishing in a second language creates additional financial costs to Colombian doctoral students and results in problems with reading comprehension, writing ease and time, and anxiety. Rejection or revision of their articles because of the English grammar was reported by 43.5% of the doctoral students, and 33% elected not to attend international conferences and meetings due to the mandatory use of English in oral presentations. Finally, among the translation/editing services reviewed, the cost per article is between one-quarter and one-half of a doctoral monthly salary in Colombia. Of particular note, we identified a positive correlation between English proficiency and higher socioeconomic origin of the researcher. Overall, this study exhibits the negative consequences of hegemony of English that preserves the global gap in science. Although having a common language is important for science communication, generating multilinguistic alternatives would promote diversity while conserving a communication channel. Such an effort should come from different actors and should not fall solely on EFL researchers.

Toxicity is widespread among living organisms, and evolves as a multimodal phenotype. Part of this phenotype is the ability to avoid self‐intoxication (autoresistance). Evolving toxin resistance can involve fitness tradeoffs, so autoresistance is often expected to evolve gradually and in tandem with toxicity, resulting in a correlation between the degrees of toxicity and autoresistance among toxic populations. We investigate this correlation in Phyllobates poison frogs, notorious for secreting batrachotoxin (BTX), a potent neurotoxin that targets sodium channels, using ancestral sequence reconstructions of BTX‐sensing areas of the muscular voltage‐gated sodium channel. Reconstructions suggest that BTX resistance arose at the root of Phyllobates, coinciding with the evolution of BTX secretion. After this event, little or no further evolution of autoresistance seems to have occurred, despite large increases in toxicity throughout the history of these frogs. Our results, therefore, provide no evidence in favor of an evolutionary correlation between toxicity and autoresistance, which conflicts with previous work. Future research on the functional costs and benefits of mutations putatively involved in BTX resistance, as well as their prevalence in natural populations, should shed light on the evolutionary mechanisms driving the relationship between toxicity and autoresistance in Phyllobates frogs.

The use of English as the common language of science represents a major impediment to maximising the contribution of non-native English speakers to science. Yet few studies have quantified the consequences of language barriers on the career development of researchers who are non-native English speakers. By surveying 908 researchers in environmental sciences, this study estimates and compares the amount of effort required to conduct scientific activities in English between researchers from different countries and, thus, different linguistic and economic backgrounds. Our survey demonstrates that non-native English speakers, especially early in their careers, spend more effort than native English speakers in conducting scientific activities, from reading and writing papers and preparing presentations in English, to disseminating research in multiple languages. Language barriers can also cause them not to attend, or give oral presentations at, international conferences conducted in English. We urge scientific communities to recognise and tackle these disadvantages to release the untapped potential of non-native English speakers in science. This study also proposes potential solutions that can be implemented today by individuals, institutions, journals, funders, and conferences. Please see the Supporting information files (S2–S6 Text) for Alternative Language Abstracts and Figs 5 and 6.

The use of English as the common language of science represents a major impediment to maximising the contribution of non-native English speakers to science. Yet few studies have quantified the consequences of language barriers on the career development of researchers who are non-native English speakers. Our survey demonstrates that non-native English speakers, especially early in their careers, spend more effort than native English speakers in conducting scientific activities, from reading and writing papers and preparing presentations in English, to disseminating research in multiple languages. Language barriers can also cause them not to attend, or give oral presentations at, international conferences conducted in English. We urge scientific communities to recognise and tackle these disadvantages to release the untapped potential of under-represented non-native English speakers in science.

Having a central scientific language remains crucial for advancing and globally sharing science. Nevertheless, maintaining one dominant language also creates barriers to accessing scientific careers and knowledge. From an interdisciplinary perspective, we describe how, when, and why to make scientific literature more readily available in multiple languages through the practice of translation. We broadly review the advantages and limitations of neural machine translation systems and propose that translation can serve as both a short- and a long-term solution for making science more resilient, accessible, globally representative, and impactful beyond the academy. We outline actions that individuals and institutions can take to support multilingual science and scientists, including structural changes that encourage and value translating scientific literature. In the long term, improvements to machine translation technologies and collective efforts to change academic norms can transform a monolingual scientific hub into a multilingual scientific network. Translations are available in the supplemental material.

Having a central scientific language remains crucial for the advancement and global sharing of science. Nevertheless, maintaining one dominant language also creates barriers to accessing scientific careers and knowledge. From an interdisciplinary perspective, we describe how, when, and why to more readily make scientific literature available in multiple languages through the practice of translation. We broadly review the advantages and limitations of neural machine translation systems and propose that translation can serve as both a short- and long-term solution for making science more resilient, accessible, globally representative, and impactful beyond the academy. We outline immediate actions that individuals and institutions can take to support multilingual science and scientists, including structural changes that encourage and place additional value on translating scientific literature. In the long term, improvements to machine translation technologies and collective efforts to change academic norms can transform a monolingual scientific hub into a more distributed, multilingual scientific network.

Many amphibian species are at risk of extinction in their natural habitats due to the presence of the fungal pathogen Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis (Bd). For the most highly endangered species, captive assurance colonies have been established as an emergency measure to avoid extinction. Experimental research has suggested that symbiotic microorganisms in the skin of amphibians play a key role against Bd. While previous studies have addressed the effects of captivity on the cutaneous bacterial community, it remains poorly studied whether and how captive conditions affect the proportion of beneficial bacteria or their anti-Bd performance on amphibian hosts. In this study we sampled three amphibian species of the highly threatened genus, Atelopus, that remain in the wild but are also part of ex situ breeding programs in Colombia and Ecuador. Our goals were to (1) estimate the diversity of culturable bacterial assemblages in these three species of Atelopus, (2) describe the effect of captivity on the composition of skin microbiota, and (3) examine how captivity affects the bacterial ability to inhibit Bd growth. Using challenge assays we tested each bacterial isolate against Bd, and through sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene, we identified species from thirteen genera of bacteria that inhibited Bd growth. Surprisingly, we did not detect a reduction in skin bacteria diversity in captive frogs. Moreover, we found that frogs in captivity still harbor bacteria with anti-Bd activity. Although the scope of our study is limited to a few species and to the culturable portion of the bacterial community, our results indicate that captive programs do not necessarily change bacterial communities of the toad skins in a way that impedes the control of Bd in case of an eventual reintroduction.

Field biology is an area of research that involves working directly with living organisms in situ through a practice known as “fieldwork.” Conducting fieldwork often requires complex logistical planning within multiregional or multinational teams, interacting with local communities at field sites, and collaborative research led by one or a few of the core team members. However, existing power imbalances stemming from geopolitical history, discrimination, and professional position, among other factors, perpetuate inequities when conducting these research endeavors. After reflecting on our own research programs, we propose four general principles to guide equitable, inclusive, ethical, and safe practices in field biology: be collaborative, be respectful, be legal, and be safe. Although many biologists already structure their field programs around these principles or similar values, executing equitable research practices can prove challenging and requires careful consideration, especially by those in positions with relatively greater privilege. Based on experiences and input from a diverse group of global collaborators, we provide suggestions for action-oriented approaches to make field biology more equitable, with particular attention to how those with greater privilege can contribute. While we acknowledge that not all suggestions will be applicable to every institution or program, we hope that they will generate discussions and provide a baseline for training in proactive, equitable fieldwork practices.