Facebook
Twitter
Pocket
Reddit
Email
More than a million species have been described by science, yet experts predict that they add up to less than 15 percent of the total species on Earth. That leaves a lot of species to be discovered and named.
Most new animal species are turning up in the “Global South,” a loosely defined group of less industrialized countries in Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, and Asia. But a new study in Proceedings of the Royal Society B reports that scientists in more industrialized countries are taking the lead in publishing new species descriptions.
It’s not surprising that, under historic colonial rule, costly scientific exploration expeditions were conducted mainly by Europeans. Many of the Global South countries are former European colonies, and access to scientific careers was limited for residents of those countries. Typically, foreign researchers “parachuted” in (visiting for limited periods of time to collect and catalog nature). While local people are known to have guided European explorers to the natural biota of their regions, those locals rarely received recognition for their work, much less being credited as coauthors in the scientific literature.
Read more: “Why Do Taxonomists Write the Meanest Obituaries?”
Science was conducted this way for generations, and the trend continues into the 21st century, according to Brazilian researchers from the State University of Campinas, the Federal University of Paraíba (UFPB), and the Federal Institute of Education, Science, and Technology of Piauí. The researchers mined scientific literature from 20 years (2003 through 2022) of published work for new species descriptions. Focusing on terrestrial mollusks—such as snails and slugs—a total of 3,272 new species were described during that period, of which more than two thirds (68 percent) inhabit the Global South. Still, Global South researchers participated in only a third of the new descriptions, while Global North researchers were listed in more than three quarters of publications announcing the discoveries.
Clearly, “parachute science” is still alive and well, the authors argue, with most species descriptions in the Global South excluding resident researchers from publication of the findings. Even when resident researchers were included, they served as first authors only 27.3 percent of the time. The United States leads the pack when it comes to new species discoveries abroad that don’t include any resident researchers.
This parachute approach, while capitalizing on the heftier academic resources available in the Global North, does not reflect the best science. The new study determined that the rigor of the research is raised by the inclusion of at least one resident researcher from the country where a new species is discovered. In-country scientists bring expertise and perspectives that can’t simply be parachuted in.
“‘Parachute’ science is a practice that harms not only local researchers, but also science in general. Less robust studies may have their results invalidated in the future,” said UFPB study coordinator and ecologist Mario Moura in a statement. “This may delay conservation efforts, which require accurate and stable information.”
So, at least for the identification of new mollusk species, it’s high time to support international collaborations that benefit from a synergy of knowledge, skills, and resources both local and abroad. 
Enjoying Nautilus? Subscribe to our free newsletter.
Lead image: creativebucket / Shutterstock
