Scientists cannot study every species in equal depth. But their choices shape what humanity knows about nature. Two studies from the University of New South Wales (UNSW), an Australian university, examine that choice. They suggest that research attention follows popularity as well as scientific need.

What happened

One study reviewed 1,383,803 papers from 612 journals. The other surveyed 868 animal behavior researchers. Together, they examined taxonomic bias: uneven research attention across animal groups. Vertebrates, animals with backbones, make up about 5% of animal species. Yet they appeared in more than half of the papers studied. In marine and freshwater biology, fish papers rose from 35.8% in 2001 to 49.7% in 2025. Aquatic invertebrates lost research share during that change. UNSW’s summary, literature study

The background

Most animal species are invertebrates, animals without backbones. They include insects, spiders, worms, slugs, mollusks, and corals. Choosing a study animal involves more than ease, cost, or social usefulness. It can also involve emotion, childhood impressions, early career experiences, and professional networks.

The survey found that birds and mammals were viewed more positively. Arachnids, including spiders, were viewed less positively. Researchers who had worked with an animal group often liked that group more afterward. Familiarity can therefore reinforce an existing pattern. Media and social attention can reinforce it too. Popular animals become easier to notice, discuss, and study.

Why it matters

This is not an argument against studying birds, fish, or mammals. It is an argument against treating popularity as a complete guide to importance. The literature study found that vertebrate studies appeared more often in higher-impact journals. Within journals, they also received more citations and media mentions.

That attention can widen knowledge gaps. Many insects have not even received scientific names. Some could disappear before anyone studies them. Less familiar animals may also hold useful biological clues. Gila monster saliva helped pave the way for newer weight-loss drugs. Glowing proteins from jellyfish helped scientists mark individual cells. Discovery does not always come from the animals people find appealing.

What the evidence shows

The strongest result is the scale and persistence of the pattern. The literature analysis covered 1,383,803 papers and found that vertebrate overrepresentation had not broadly improved since the early 2000s. Some fields changed differently, so the bias is not identical everywhere.

The survey supports an association between researchers’ feelings and their choices. It does not say that every scientist chooses animals because they are cute. It points instead to several forces working together: practical reasons, social values, emotional reactions, and academic context. Survey study

What remains unknown

The studies do not establish that research should match the number of species in each group. Urgent medical, ecological, or conservation questions may justify focused attention. The survey also covered 868 animal behavior researchers, not every biologist. Most importantly, the researchers cannot yet measure how many discoveries were missed because neglected animals received little attention.

What to watch next

Universities and governments can fund neglected groups and species that have never been studied. They can also support basic work that records species and their natural history. The useful test is whether future research covers more of the living world, not simply whether one popular group becomes less popular.