Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc_maurer | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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

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

They smell like the animal much quicker. Presumably this results in some correlation in their gut flora

> 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.

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.

I think some of it is self-selection, but I also think some of it is a filtering effect based on the much more competitive and stressful atmosphere. Getting funding and permits and equipment to study sharks is a way more stressful process than walking around in a field collecting bugs. Not that collecting bugs is always easy, but the barrier to entry is way lower.

I started watching harp videos and they're all so calm and composed, like harp music lol. I really wonder if they're attracted to the harp because they're harp-like or if they became harp-like because of playing the harp.

The idea that you can change your personality just by choosing a field of study is for some reason very appealing to me.

> 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).

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

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.

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.

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

Plenty of variability within that subset though! Lots of stereotypes based on your study system lol

"Or"? ;)

Logical or is the default or, which allows for either one, either other, or one _and_ other

3 bi-di logical implications (between those 3 adjectives) is the right thing here ;)

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.

thy username suiteth thy comment

Reply on news.ycombinator.com