4 ms·

It's a pretty widely known thing that studying charismatic megafauna gets you lots of money. However, they're also generally WAY more of a pain to study. Fewer

It's a pretty widely known thing that studying charismatic megafauna gets you lots of money. However, they're also generally WAY more of a pain to study. Fewer individuals, larger home ranges, expensive permits, etc. A good friend studies basking sharks and the shark research world is insanely competitive, full of crazy type A folks. Compared to the insect ecology world (where I come from), which is full of pretty chill stoners and weirdos.

insane_dreamer 2y ago
My takeaway is that to be an ecological researcher one must be crazy, weird, or stoned :)
- pvaldes 2y ago
  My takeaway is that to be an ecological researcher one must be intelligent, curious, capable and have the desire to help people to live better. cliches are stupid.
- mc_maurer 2y ago
  Plenty of variability within that subset though! Lots of stereotypes based on your study system lol
- solardev 2y ago
  "Or"? ;)
  - humanfromearth9 2y ago
    Logical or is the default or, which allows for either one, either other, or one _and_ other
  - fuzztester 2y ago
    3 bi-di logical implications (between those 3 adjectives) is the right thing here ;)
- fuzztester 2y ago
  thy username suiteth thy comment
Biganon 2y ago
I wonder if the group studying an animal slowly evolves to resemble this animal
- fuzztester 2y ago
  Good insight. I have thougbt the same or similar. >I wonder if the group studying an animal slowly evolves to resemble this animal IOW: I wonder if the group studying an animal slowly evolves to look like this animal likely
  - klyrs 2y ago
    They smell like the animal much quicker. Presumably this results in some correlation in their gut flora
    - pvaldes 2y ago
      > They smell like the animal. Presumably this results in some correlation in their gut flora Frankly, this claims are starting to be a little offensive. Biologists take baths also when needed. Exactly the same as any other people. This would be not different than claiming that people that breed pigs, ends looking and smelling like pigs. Is not a productive way to drive this kind of conversations.
- taylorius 2y ago
  That's interesting. I first read your comment, and I thought you were referring to the personalities of those studying an animal gradually changing as they unconsciously model their own behavior after that animal. This seems highly plausible to me. But then I re-read it, and the second time it seemed to mean that the members of a group studying a certain animal would self select to favour those who are fascinated by and admire that animal. This also seems highly plausible to me. Either way, it seems fitting that the world of shark study is full of "apex predator" researchers.
  - mc_maurer 2y ago
kazinator 2y ago
> studying charismatic megafauna gets you lots of money May I ask how so? Is it from producing popular documentaries or something? Or is there the research grant money from conservationist institutions or societies? (I can see how that wouldn't be there for parasites).
- mc_maurer 2y ago
  It comes down to a lot of factors, but a big one is the diversity of funding sources. If you study a species that doesn't have broad appeal, you're probably looking at NSF funding, maybe USDA. If you study a game animal you can tap into all sorts of funding sources, like Ducks Unlimited, etc. You might be able to get state or federal wildlife agency funding. You might get a weird, wealthy donor who like sharks. NSF grants are still the most important and impressive for most subfields within ecology, but the competition is fierce.
- sethammons 2y ago
  Donors. They want something that makes them feel good. Something to talk about at a cocktail party. LCM: large charismatic mammal; I'm saving pandas is better than the parasitic anderson wasp* that lives out its lifecycle in some gross fungus thing *imaginary bug
  - vibrio 2y ago
    Your point is well taken that pandas are probably a quick pitch for the right crowd, but “lots of money” seems optimistic for wildlife/conservation biology funding. That said, raising money for diseases of __human__ inhabitants of the developing world is typically quite a challenge. Counter to the focus of this thread, obesity is where it’s at right now for abundant funding.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

My takeaway is that to be an ecological researcher one must be crazy, weird, or stoned :)

pvaldes 2y ago
My takeaway is that to be an ecological researcher one must be intelligent, curious, capable and have the desire to help people to live better. cliches are stupid.
mc_maurer 2y ago
Plenty of variability within that subset though! Lots of stereotypes based on your study system lol
solardev 2y ago
"Or"? ;)
- humanfromearth9 2y ago
  Logical or is the default or, which allows for either one, either other, or one _and_ other
- fuzztester 2y ago
  3 bi-di logical implications (between those 3 adjectives) is the right thing here ;)
fuzztester 2y ago
thy username suiteth thy comment

Biganon 2y ago

I wonder if the group studying an animal slowly evolves to resemble this animal

fuzztester 2y ago
Good insight. I have thougbt the same or similar. >I wonder if the group studying an animal slowly evolves to resemble this animal IOW: I wonder if the group studying an animal slowly evolves to look like this animal likely
- klyrs 2y ago
  They smell like the animal much quicker. Presumably this results in some correlation in their gut flora
  - pvaldes 2y ago
    > They smell like the animal. Presumably this results in some correlation in their gut flora Frankly, this claims are starting to be a little offensive. Biologists take baths also when needed. Exactly the same as any other people. This would be not different than claiming that people that breed pigs, ends looking and smelling like pigs. Is not a productive way to drive this kind of conversations.
taylorius 2y ago
That's interesting. I first read your comment, and I thought you were referring to the personalities of those studying an animal gradually changing as they unconsciously model their own behavior after that animal. This seems highly plausible to me. But then I re-read it, and the second time it seemed to mean that the members of a group studying a certain animal would self select to favour those who are fascinated by and admire that animal. This also seems highly plausible to me. Either way, it seems fitting that the world of shark study is full of "apex predator" researchers.
- mc_maurer 2y ago

kazinator 2y ago

> studying charismatic megafauna gets you lots of money May I ask how so? Is it from producing popular documentaries or something? Or is there the research grant money from conservationist institutions or societies? (I can see how that wouldn't be there for parasites).

mc_maurer 2y ago
It comes down to a lot of factors, but a big one is the diversity of funding sources. If you study a species that doesn't have broad appeal, you're probably looking at NSF funding, maybe USDA. If you study a game animal you can tap into all sorts of funding sources, like Ducks Unlimited, etc. You might be able to get state or federal wildlife agency funding. You might get a weird, wealthy donor who like sharks. NSF grants are still the most important and impressive for most subfields within ecology, but the competition is fierce.
sethammons 2y ago
Donors. They want something that makes them feel good. Something to talk about at a cocktail party. LCM: large charismatic mammal; I'm saving pandas is better than the parasitic anderson wasp* that lives out its lifecycle in some gross fungus thing *imaginary bug
- vibrio 2y ago
  Your point is well taken that pandas are probably a quick pitch for the right crowd, but “lots of money” seems optimistic for wildlife/conservation biology funding. That said, raising money for diseases of __human__ inhabitants of the developing world is typically quite a challenge. Counter to the focus of this thread, obesity is where it’s at right now for abundant funding.