Characteristics that make trophy hunting of giant pandas inconceivable.

In November 1928, Theodore Jr. and Kermit Roosevelt led an expedition to China with the expressed purpose of being the first Westerners to kill the giant panda (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). The expedition lasted 8 months and resulted in the brothers shooting a giant panda in the mountains of Sichuan Province. Given the concurrent attention in the popular press describing this celebrated expedition, the giant panda was poised to be trophy hunted much like other large mammals around the world. Today, however, the killing of giant pandas, even for the generation of conservation revenue, is unthinkable for reasons related to the species itself and the context, in time and space, in which the species was popularized in the West. We found that the giant panda's status as a conservation symbol, exceptional charisma and gentle disposition, rarity, value as a nonconsumptive ecotourism attraction, and endemism are integral to the explanation of why the species is not trophy hunted. We compared these intrinsic and extrinsic characteristics with 20 of the most common trophy-hunted mammals to determine whether the principles applying to giant pandas are generalizable to other species. Although certain characteristics of the 20 trophy-hunted mammals aligned with the giant panda, many did not. Charisma, economic value, and endemism, in particular, were comparatively unique to the giant panda. Our analysis suggests that, at present, exceptional characteristics may be necessary for certain mammals to be excepted from trophy hunting. However, because discourse relating to the role of trophy hunting in supporting conservation outcomes is dynamic in both science and society, we suspect these valuations will also change in future.

Article impact statement: Giant panda's symbolism, gentle nature, endemism, rarity, and value as an ecotourism target make trophy hunting the species unthinkable. Características que Hacen que la Caza de Trofeos de Pandas sea Inconcebible Resumen En noviembre de 1928, Theodore Jr. y Kermit Roosevelt lideraron una expedición a China con el propósito explícito de ser los primeros occidentales en cazar un panda gigante (Ailuropoda melanoleuca). La expedición duró ocho meses y terminó con los hermanos disparándole a un panda gigante en las montañas de la provincia de Sichuan. Dada la atención simultánea en la prensa popular que describía esta expedición celebrada, se posicionó al panda gigante como un nuevo objetivo de la caza de trofeos como muchos otros mamíferos alrededor del mundo. Sin embargo, hoy en día, la caza de pandas gigantes, incluso para la generación de ingresos para la conservación, es impensable debido a razones relacionadas con la misma especie y el contexto de tiempo y espacio en el que se popularizó a la especie en Occidente. Descubrimos que el estado del panda gigante como símbolo de conservación, su excepcional carisma y temperamento gentil, rareza, valor como atracción ecoturística no consuntiva y su endemismo son integrales para explicar por qué la especie no se caza como trofeo. Comparamos estas características intrínsecas y extrínsecas con 20 de los mamíferos más comunes en la caza deportiva para determinar si los principios que aplican para los pandas gigantes pueden generalizarse para otras especies. Mientras que ciertas características de los 20 mamíferos se alinearon con las del panda gigante, muchas no lo hicieron. El carisma, el valor económico y el endemismo, en particular, fueron comparativamente únicos para el panda gigante. Nuestro análisis sugiere que, actualmente, las características excepcionales pueden ser necesarias para que ciertos mamíferos no sean objeto de la caza deportiva. Sin embargo, ya que el discurso relacionado con el papel de la caza deportiva en el apoyo a los resultados de conservación es dinámico tanto en la ciencia como en la sociedad, sospechamos que estas valoraciones también cambiarán en el futuro.

Conceptions of Good Science in Our Data-Rich World.

Scientists have been debating for centuries the nature of proper scientific methods. Currently, criticisms being thrown at data-intensive science are reinvigorating these debates. However, many of these criticisms represent long-standing conflicts over the role of hypothesis testing in science and not just a dispute about the amount of data used. Here, we show that an iterative account of scientific methods developed by historians and philosophers of science can help make sense of data-intensive scientific practices and suggest more effective ways to evaluate this research. We use case studies of Darwin's research on evolution by natural selection and modern-day research on macrosystems ecology to illustrate this account of scientific methods and the innovative approaches to scientific evaluation that it encourages. We point out recent changes in the spheres of science funding, publishing, and education that reflect this richer account of scientific practice, and we propose additional reforms.

It's Good to Share: Why Environmental Scientists' Ethics Are Out of Date.

Although there have been many recent calls for increased data sharing, the majority of environmental scientists do not make their individual data sets publicly available in online repositories. Current data-sharing conversations are focused on overcoming the technological challenges associated with data sharing and the lack of rewards and incentives for individuals to share data. We argue that the most important conversation has yet to take place: There has not been a strong ethical impetus for sharing data within the current culture, behaviors, and practices of environmental scientists. In this article, we describe a critical shift that is happening in both society and the environmental science community that makes data sharing not just good but ethically obligatory. This is a shift toward the ethical value of promoting inclusivity within and beyond science. An essential element of a truly inclusionary and democratic approach to science is to share data through publicly accessible data sets.

Authorship climate: A new tool for studying ethical issues in authorship.

Authorship of academic publications is central to scientists' careers, but decisions about how to include and order authors on publications are often fraught with difficult ethical issues. To better understand scholars' experiences with authorship, we developed a novel concept, authorship climate, which assesses perceptions of the procedural, informational, and distributive justice associated with authorship decisions. We conducted a representative survey of more than 3,000 doctoral students, postdoctoral researchers, and assistant professors from a stratified random sample of U.S. biology, economics, physics, and psychology departments. We found that individuals who tend to have more power on science teams perceived authorship climate to be more positive than those who tend to have less power. Alphabetical approaches for assigning authorship were associated with higher perceptions of procedural justice and informational justice but lower perceptions of distributive justice. Individuals with more marginalized identities also tended to perceive authorship climate more negatively than those with no marginalized identities. These results illustrate how the concept of authorship climate can facilitate enhanced understanding of early-career scholars' authorship experiences, and they highlight potential steps that can be taken to promote more positive authorship experiences for scholars of all identities.

Disproportionate impacts of COVID-19 on marginalized and minoritized early-career academic scientists.

Early research on the impact of COVID-19 on academic scientists suggests that disruptions to research, teaching, and daily work life are not experienced equally. However, this work has overwhelmingly focused on experiences of women and parents, with limited attention to the disproportionate impact on academic work by race, disability status, sexual identity, first-generation status, and academic career stage. Using a stratified random survey sample of early-career academics in four science disciplines (N = 3,277), we investigated socio-demographic and career stage differences in the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic along seven work outcomes: changes in four work areas (research progress, workload, concern about career advancement, support from mentors) and work disruptions due to three COVID-19 related life challenges (physical health, mental health, and caretaking). Our analyses examined patterns across career stages as well as separately for doctoral students and for postdocs/assistant professors. Overall, our results indicate that scientists from marginalized (i.e., devalued) and minoritized (i.e., underrepresented) groups across early career stages reported more negative work outcomes as a result of COVID-19. However, there were notable patterns of differences depending on the socio-demographic identities examined. Those with a physical or mental disability were negatively impacted on all seven work outcomes. Women, primary caregivers, underrepresented racial minorities, sexual minorities, and first-generation scholars reported more negative experiences across several outcomes such as increased disruptions due to physical health symptoms and additional caretaking compared to more privileged counterparts. Doctoral students reported more work disruptions from life challenges than other early-career scholars, especially those related to health problems, while assistant professors reported more negative changes in areas such as decreased research progress and increased workload. These findings suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately harmed work outcomes for minoritized and marginalized early-career scholars. Institutional interventions are required to address these inequalities in an effort to retain diverse cohorts in academic science.

Team climate mediates the effect of diversity on environmental science team satisfaction and data sharing.

Scientific research-especially high-impact research-is increasingly being performed in teams that are interdisciplinary and demographically diverse. Nevertheless, very little research has investigated how the climate on these diverse science teams affects data sharing or the experiences of their members. To address these gaps, we conducted a quantitative study of 266 scientists from 105 NSF-funded interdisciplinary environmental science teams. We examined how team climate mediates the associations between team diversity and three outcomes: satisfaction with the team, satisfaction with authorship practices, and perceptions of the frequency of data sharing. Using path analyses, we found that individuals from underrepresented groups perceived team climate more negatively, which was associated with lower satisfaction with the team and more negative perceptions of authorship practices and data sharing on the team. However, individuals on teams with more demographic diversity reported a more positive climate than those on teams with less demographic diversity. These results highlight the importance of team climate, the value of diverse teams for team climate, and barriers to the full inclusion and support of individuals from underrepresented groups in interdisciplinary science teams.

Honorary Authorship Practices in Environmental Science Teams: Structural and Cultural Factors and Solutions.

Overinclusive authorship practices such as honorary or guest authorship have been widely reported, and they appear to be exacerbated by the rise of large interdisciplinary collaborations that make authorship decisions particularly complex. Although many studies have reported on the frequency of honorary authorship and potential solutions to it, few have probed how the underlying dynamics of large interdisciplinary teams contribute to the problem. This article reports on a qualitative study of the authorship standards and practices of six National Science Foundation-funded interdisciplinary environmental science teams. Using interviews of the lead principal investigator and an early-career member on each team, our study explores the nature of honorary authorship practices as well as some of the motivating factors that may contribute to these practices. These factors include both structural elements (policies and procedures) and cultural elements (values and norms) that cross organizational boundaries. Therefore, we provide recommendations that address the intersection of these factors and that can be applied at multiple organizational levels.

'Infinite loneliness': the life and times of Miss Congo.

The arrival of Miss Congo, a female mountain gorilla, in America provided the opportunity for a scientific study of the mental abilities of our close cousin. Since the mid-nineteenth century, gorillas had captivated the imagination of the public and scientific community alike. In 1925, psychobiologist Robert Mearns Yerkes was thrilled to gain access to such a rare primate specimen. Yerkes' study of 'The Mind of a Gorilla' reveals how our enduring fascination with the gorilla is driven by conflicting desires to demonstrate our connection with and distance from our fellow great apes.