Scientists prefer studying pretty plants to dull ones | Hacker News Reader

Scientists prefer studying pretty plants to dull ones

nature.com

143 pointshelsinkiandrew61 comments

As Poincaré said a while ago:

The scientist does not study nature because it is useful; he studies it because he delights in it, and he delights in it because it is beautiful. If nature were not beautiful, it would not be worth knowing, and if nature were not worth knowing, life would not be worth living.

On a separate note, Arabidopsis isn't that pretty yet it has been The Model System in plant science for years..

Model organisms such as Arabidopsis thaliana are usually chosen based on criteria other than prettiness.

Not in the field you're referring to, but C. Elegans also comes to mind.

You know, if I could have my time again, I think I would be a microbial ecologist. I would spend my time studying micro-organisms in their natural environment. I'd cut my way through forests of bacteria on a grain of sand. I would imagine myself in a submarine in a drop of water that seemed as large as a lake, and for one more turn around, I would be an explorer naturalist in a new world.

E.O. Wilson

Its probably cause its easy to grow and you can get 8 generations a year to study in the lab.

Compare with another serious topic: cancer deaths vs funding:

- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1124435/

- https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3411479/

Breast cancer (and leukemia, as it affects kids) are proportionally the most funded ones. Rectal cancer (with a similar DALY loss as breast cancer) does not receive nearly as much funding. Lung cancer (which is common and deadly) gets little funding, as we associate it with people taking their own risk with smoking, even though often it is not the case (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27023395, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/01410768198436...).

Slight correction. Most lung cancer is due to smoking, although around 5% are not as your links demonstrate. Share of funding in research is hard and does often play on emotions. There is an interesting concept of funding for “orphan drugs/diseases” from governments for diseases so rare they would never get funded at all from private companies. It’s an interesting ethical question whether these should get funded. https://jme.bmj.com/content/medethics/31/3/164.full.pdf

How do you know the origin of the particle that causes the cancer? Seems like lung cancer is just attributed to smoking when a lung cancer patient has smoked.

Well, if you want to go down the rabbit hole of causation, there is very little you can say definitely, as proving causation is practically impossible. So you can never say what caused any disease. Having said that, most diseases are multifactorial in origin, with cells mostly having multiple insults to lead to cancer- both on an individual cell and cell population basis. For types of cancer associated with smoking (like non adenocarcinomas of the lung), its likely that smoking contributed to at least one of the insults causing a cell to undergo metaplasia/dysplasia or become cancerous, or statistically would be likely to lead to that cancer on a cell population basis.

15% of adults in the US smoke. If 95% of lung cancer patients have smoked, there's some kind of relationship there.

How do you think scientists get interested in plants in the first place?

I'm a recreational scuba diver, which means that my hobby is to to go underwater and try to see stuff that is neat. Of course I want to see the pretty colorful fishes and sea slugs! No diver spends thousands traveling to far flung destinations to peer at the dull and ugly. Right now I have no scientific purpose, but I bet there is an almost perfect correlation with people who like to scuba dive and go on to be marine researchers.

In an alternate reality I’m a scuba diving marine biologist. I hated biology in school, but I’ve always had a soft spot for fish. Now I think biology is cool and so I have some ragrets.

Scuba diving is something I’ve always wanted to do, but never put any effort into getting started. Thanks for nudging me in that direction.

I think this points towards the inability of traditional schooling to engage kids in educational topics. I experienced something similiar where I bounced off math in school, partially because it was taught to me as rote memorization. Only years later did I realize how much I enjoy learning maths.

I had a love for biology even before programming, though it was kinda difficult to do anything with it outside or reading books I could on partially understand. Of course, even today I’m not sure I could stomach the salary they pay biologists and I’m even open to a pay cut to some degree.

Life sciences as a field is known for grueling repetitive manual labor and rock bottom wages (because so many people are passionate about life sciences). Traditional schooling has its flaws, but in the case of life science I would argue it goes the other way- students are dazzled by the cool parts and unaware of the slog after school.

Not sure if you're in the US, but once you get your Open Water certification, you might want to see if there's a university near you that offers the AAUS[1] scientific diving course. It can be a path for being able to do underwater research, but without necessarily need a biology or ecology degree. I'm finishing it up right now, and the last time I took a biology course was sophomore year of high school.

[1] https://www.aaus.org/

Cool, that sounds really interesting! Forgive me if this is easily Googleable (I couldn’t find it) but what do you do once you have your AAUS certification? Do you get a full time/part time job doing scientific dives for a university, or do you do volunteer research? Do you do your own research or help marine biologists do theirs?

It really depends! I'm currently on staff at a university, and some of my time moving forward will be allocated towards helping a research project that needs a diver with some instrumentation skills. I do know at least two people who have taken it that aren't officially part of the university, although they did have some ties (alumni or lived locally).

In general, you probably won't be doing your own research unless you enroll in a PhD program or somehow enlist some other folks to help you do some citizen science that you'll try to publish. Having the AAUS certification can definitely help in getting you a job at a university, if you're interested in that sort of thing, in which case you'll mostly likely work on whatever projects the group that hires you is doing. A word of caution; academic marine technicians are generally paid very little, especially compared to what a lot of the HN crowd seems used to making.

That's the "general answer"; an honest one is that it will really depend on the specifics of the university, their policies/approaches to diving, and your connection to that community in whatever form it takes. Hope this was helpful--my email's in my profile if you have more specific questions!

If you don't mind me asking, how long (1 semester? days/week?) is the course you're taking? For me, the closest location listed on the site is a university about 3 hours away. There's not a lot of info on their page, but it sounds like something I'd be interested in, if I could actually work around it.

If I'm remembering correctly, the requirements are something like 100-150 hours of coursework, plus around a dozen training dives; that gets you your basic certification. Past that point, as you get more practical experience, you're allowed to do deeper/more technical dives--it's not like exactly Open Water, where they functionally say "you're certified, go have fun and we'll never see you again!".

My first time through the course got disrupted by COVID, but I think the lion's share of the training happens over the course of 1.5-2 months of part-time.

Thanks! I did manage to find a little more info from the local university's site. Unfortunately that might not work out as they mention there's a wait-list and I'm not even currently enrolled.

I might have to check nearby states. It sounds do-able, though.

Ah, gotcha. It still might be worth adding your name to the waitlist--sometimes spots open up because students have to drop out. I'd honestly guess the biggest issue right now is COVID. Many (most?) universities are still being very strict about social distancing, and the nature of dive training has meant that the total number of trainees has been reduced significantly. Anyway, if I can answer any others questions, feel free to shoot me a message (email's in my profile)!

Well,I imagine pretty much all marine researchers like scuba diving. But it only goes the one way. Most of us that like scuba diving will only be occasional visitors to the underwater world.

I dive to see coral reefs that are not bleached yet.

I've been to many destinations that people rave about, and I realize they have no idea what a robust, alive, coral reef looks like. This trend will continue.

This hits close to home. I am the son of a marine biologist, and was I was a marine biologist myself. I grew up studying coral reef ecosystems is some of the most beautiful pristine locations in the Caribbean.

40ish years later, even in the most celebrated and remote areas of the Caribbean, nothing is the same.

To someone who has been diving for 10-20 years, sure, it looks like there are tons of fish and coral. But I can remember the reefs of my childhood. Compared to 40 years ago, everything is dead, empty, and covered in algae and fire coral.

People have no idea what we lost.

I can remember huge forests of Elkhorn coral, coming up in 40-60 feet of water, growing in colonies the size of city blocks. Schools of snapper that could fill boat after boat, and still look like giant underwater tornados. Black Grouper the size of dingys were a common sight, and pre-spearfishing would swim up to you unafraid. You can find some examples now, but what is considered exceptional today was the norm in years past. The density of life was astounding, and we'll never see it again in my lifetime.

I've heard the red sea is the same, faded glory. I've also heard that some more remote areas of the great barrier reef and parts of the south Pacific may be healthy. I've never been, so I can't comment.

I wonder what else we have lost.

Yes, the great barrier reef has some vestiges of this and you can find maps. The maps do show an impending doom though… but it is possible to reach some lively areas by boat from land in an hour or two. It is also easy to perceive the ecosystem imbalance on the way and there, you might see a turtle stuck at the surface because they ate a plastic bag instead of a jelly fish, you’ll likely see invasive star fish, its sad but you can see color and vibrant ecosystems…for now.

In comparison, other places I’ve seen around the world look like the bleached areas of the great barrier reef that are considered lost. It is really strange to me that people must just be so underexposed that any snorkeling or diving is satisfactory.

Shifting baselines syndrome

but mostly dead coral reef syndrome

Nevermind 40 years, what might these areas have looked like 400 years ago? When did we start significantly changing the distribution of food pyramids?

Replying 9 days later to share that I just signed up for scuba lessons, in part thanks to reading your comment!

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.

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.

> 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.

As a gardener, who is constantly taking photos of my plants and tagging them, I noticed the same pattern while generating stats on all the tags collected over time.

The frequency of photos would increase when there was flowering, fruiting, growth spurts, interesting leaf growth etc but the plant would get totally ignored for long periods if its neighbour was doing something more interesting or if it was struck by diseases/bugs, wilting, dying etc.

I also realized my least photographed subjects are weeds. Even though a lot of time is spent looking for them and managing them and just being gobsmaked at how unbelievably good they are at surviving whatever the universe throws at them.

I have a dumb script that generates a periodic report on all the tags to tell me which plant/tag hasnt been clicked for a while. It hasnt really made me a more disciplined but I feel its constantly reminding me of what I getting bored off and where my interests lie.

I also realized my least photographed subjects are weeds

That probably depends on your definition of weeds then, yours seems quite strict? Almost meaing 'pest' perhaps? Here in Western Europe, especially in previous generations, the term tends to get used for pretty much everything which is bascially just a native wild plant. It's ok if it's short grass or when you can buy it in a store, but otherwise the label is 'weed'. And I'm really not exaggerating here. As such if you want to take photgraphs of plants outdoors those 'weeds' are the targets. Even the most common ones tend to be rather beautiful.

Thats interesting :) I like the perspective. Yup I was taught to think of them as pests, especially when then get close too or tangled up with some of the more "delicate" plants.

Another issue is whenever curiosity spikes, its not that easy to identify them or get more info about them by simple googling or looking at books (my botanical technical vocabulary isnt that great) so they remain these mysterious unidentified unknowns. But yeah totally agree they are beautiful in their own way and are constantly surprising me.

The Chad orchid vs the virgin philodendron.

Yeah, I almost feel pity for that wheat, corn or microalgae that nobody studies...

(And the theory that claims that any article starting with "scientists do this or that" is bullshit, wins again).

I can't quite tell if this is sarcasm or not. If it's not sarcasm, wheat and corn have been studied loads. I worked at an institute that specialised in cereals. If it is sarcasm, I actually find wheat and corn quite pretty. No comment on mircoalgae, though.

I'm sure this is sarcasm.

Seems like to to me too, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

We study yeast like crazy. Hint: it's not because of bread. And the knock-on effects of studying yeast have been good for other fields (students t-test e.g.)

Am I the only one with a subscription to plain plants monthly, where the centerfold is typically a form of highland wheat?

Sssh. There's a support group down the hall. Don't tell anyone else because we're very embarrassed about it.

Tobacco Mosaic virus was heavily studied by plant biologists, and its hardly pretty.

Canola came about because scientists wanted to work on yield of a boring plant: Rapeseed fields are monochromatic yellow.

I worked in a marine biology lab, the PhDs there were obsessed with Kelp, one of the most un-lovely plants I can imagine but a kelp forest is a beautiful thing, if you understand it.

Mangrove swamps are as ugly as all hell. They teem with life but there's no beauty innately in the mangrove per se.

I just don't agree with this conclusion, evidence not withstanding. I think there has to be some sample bias creeping in.

Really? I think scientists want to work on interesting problems. If they attract funds, so much the better. But, Scientists defy typing. Some of them are collectors, some of them are dissectors, some of them are "how-does-it-workers", some of them are "how-can-I-kill-it" specialists.

Pretty is in the eye of the beholder.

Perhaps it's not because they're attractive to the researcher, but rather to the reviewer?

If you have to live and think day and night about a plant, I can understand you pick the pretty one. But like with spider I am sure some people will get affection for the less loved one.

It's interesting that they don't consider cultivating more charismatic plants serve the various ecosystem niches. It would allow scientists to align with their inclinations over time.

Plant rolls +8 CHA, +3 AGI, +10 INT.

In other news, humans make pretty animals their pets, eat the ugly ones.

Not only that but I feed other animals to my pretty cat. He's a beautiful animal though...

They eat pretty ones too, like horses. Just not in America...

Don't tell my wife. She'll cry.

I love both cats and dogs, but there are definitely some ugly species of both, that aren't even adorably ugly.

I wonder which way ‘round this happened.

Scientists also tend to study what they can get funding for, which is often easier for more beautiful or easily explainable subjects.

I suspect that it's easier to get funding to research pretty plants or to try to preserve them, and less charismatic plants and animals are much more likely to attract scorn from small-government types trying to "ferret out government waste". And if the money's going to be raised from private donors the effect is going to be even worse: save the redwoods or pandas, lots of money. Save the snail darter (crickets).

I have a friend/coworker who refers to these as "boutique" ecosystems/organisms. They're the ones that are really easy to love/study/want to preserve, like coral reefs and clownfish, or kelp forests and sea otters.

Damn plant halo effect biases. Ugly plants have great personalities if they'd try chatting with them.

This is a specific version of a more general problem, namely that scientists only study what interests them, therefore there are gaps in what gets studied. There are fads in scientific research, just like everything else people do. Not sure what the solution is (more diversely targeted grant funds for basic research?) but we almost did not have an mRNA vaccine because mRNA research was not popular at one time. I'm not sure there are even surveys to identify these gaps. You occasionally see papers or articles about "open questions in discipline X" but those are still only aimed at popular research interests. Truly identifying gaps in research direction is partly impossible for areas no one knows anything about, but it seems like a group of people with deep knowledge could at least create a partial map of the territory. The microbiome probably remained unstudied for so long because it was a "yucky" area of research that no one wanted to study. Research into cures for liver diseases were not popular because "they would just encourage people to drink". I'm sure there are many other examples.

Ah yes aesthetic usability effect

Reply on news.ycombinator.com