4 ms·

The opener of the synopsis - that scientific interest is skewed toward charismatic organisms is one of the least interesting points I think you could raise - it

by munk-a 6y ago

The opener of the synopsis - that scientific interest is skewed toward charismatic organisms is one of the least interesting points I think you could raise - it is obviously true due to the fact that people are going to study things that interests them. If a plant is suspected as being a big leap toward the cure of cancer we'll see a lot of scientists suddenly invest a lot of effort into studying it - similarly we see a lot of scientific focus around relatively novel plants because they have interesting attributes. The interesting thing for me in this study is that we've got a strong tie to surface level appearance - color and morphology in particular. So, we may have to supply some incentives to love those drab beige plants that aren't getting enough attention.

7952 6y ago
There must be an evolutionary basis for some of this. Reacting to the appearance of plants could be really useful to a foraging human. But as modern humans we have repurposed that skill towards something more abstract. Pretty daffodils instead of starchy foods. But we probably all have some capacity to use that ability.
whyenot 6y ago
> The interesting thing for me in this study is that we've got a strong tie to surface level appearance I'm not surprised. Studying charismatic species will likely help with getting you funding, is more likely to get you news coverage, attract graduate students, etc. Keep in mind that field botany is not very well supported by the NSF. Those who work in this area often have to find other sources for funding. Studying a plant that looks good to the members of the California Native Plant Society, for example is not necessarily a bad strategy. I have no hard numbers, but you can see a similar pattern in other areas of field biology. For example, it sure looks like there are a lot more people studying birds and cute furry mammals than reptiles, fish, or insects.

by munk-a 6y ago

7952 6y ago

There must be an evolutionary basis for some of this. Reacting to the appearance of plants could be really useful to a foraging human. But as modern humans we have repurposed that skill towards something more abstract. Pretty daffodils instead of starchy foods. But we probably all have some capacity to use that ability.

whyenot 6y ago

> The interesting thing for me in this study is that we've got a strong tie to surface level appearance I'm not surprised. Studying charismatic species will likely help with getting you funding, is more likely to get you news coverage, attract graduate students, etc. Keep in mind that field botany is not very well supported by the NSF. Those who work in this area often have to find other sources for funding. Studying a plant that looks good to the members of the California Native Plant Society, for example is not necessarily a bad strategy. I have no hard numbers, but you can see a similar pattern in other areas of field biology. For example, it sure looks like there are a lot more people studying birds and cute furry mammals than reptiles, fish, or insects.