对于生态学家而言，要建立有说服力的概念和规则，则需要跨地域、跨学科的交叉研究。南非和英国科学家近日分析了研究者的选择性来评估其潜在的偏爱，探讨社会利益如何影响研究者选择研究对象（生物体），特别是通过对科学文献中和因特网上相对有代表性研究物种进行比较。生物种类、保护情况、地理位置和经济利益可能会影响研究者选择何种生物进行研究，潜在的社会偏见对研究客体的选择有一定的影响。尽管通常情况下科学文献和网上搜索结果呈现正相关关系，但是抛开这个普遍的规律，与社会偏好相比较，生物学研究课题的选择反映了社会利益。科研成果比社会利益似乎更易受经济和实际问题影响，而较少受地理障碍与社会政治障碍的影响。
虽然各种生物研究反映了社会需要，但是还存在着诸多类别和地域上的差距。有些生物群体和有些地区显然比其他群体和其他地区更受关注。生态学家对某个群体开展深入认识的进程是否成功还有待评价。如果生态学家要完善概念，则需要拓宽研究领域，也许更应该把重点放在填补分类上的空白。
相关论文发表在《生态与环境科学前沿》（Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment）上。（科学新闻杂志 康嘉/编译）。
生物谷推荐原始出处：
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment，Volume 5, Issue 8，pp. 409–414，John RU Wilson，David M Richardson
The (bio)diversity of science reflects the interests of society
John RU Wilson1,*, erban Proche1, Brigitte Braschler2,1, Edd S Dixon1, and David M Richardson1
For ecologists to develop robust generalizations and principles, a broad taxonomic and geographic spread of research is required, but, in practice, most generalizations are based on the research of individual scientists and groups, and their choice of study organism is affected by many different factors. We analyzed researchers' choice to assess potential biases. In particular, by comparing the relative representation of species in the scientific literature and on the Internet, we explored how the choice of study organism is influenced by societal interests. While there is a strong positive correlation between output in the scientific literature and on the web, deviations from this general pattern suggest that, when compared with societal biases, research agendas are more directly influenced by economic priorities and practical limitations, and less by geographical and sociopolitical barriers. Although the range of biological research reflects the needs of society, there are still large taxonomic and geographic gaps. By focusing on specific groups, we are developing an in-depth knowledge of certain taxa, but if ecologists are to develop generalizations, we may need to widen our research scope.
