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

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.