The lure of exotic research locales

Our group was typically atypical of ecologists. We all love the natural world, but few of us are content to always stay close to home for our research. We build on a long tradition of scientists who travel to exotic locales for scientific research.

From Carl Linnaeus and before, since Charles Darwin was selected to accompany Captain Robert Fitzroy on the second voyage of the Beagle, naturalists have sought opportunities to study abroad. While few have had a fraction of the biological impact that attained by Linnaeus with his nomenclature system and by Darwin following his voyage and subsequent Theory of Evolution, many of us are drawn to the adventure of travel and the lure of discovery in exotic locales. Somehow, seeing new ecological systems improves the chances we can make more general predictions about all ecology.

The desire for exotic research is, for some, a contradiction in values. As ecologists we understand the environmental costs of burning fossil fuels to travel vast distances for research. As international citizens we understand the abysmal poverty that is the yoke for so many on Earth. Why should we use resources to travel halfway around the world to study what most people view as insignificant animals, plants, and microbes that inhabit streams?

Our use of resources can only partially be justified by some of our lifestyle choices otherwise (some of us recycle, bicycle to work, turn down the heat and up the air conditioner, etc.). Still, most scientists that study the natural world have a very large footprint. In my book, Humanity’s Footprint, there is detailed discussion about how those that live in the developed word are “cheaters” that take advantage and use more than their fair (sustainable) share of the Earth’s resources. There is also detailed discussion about how being a “cheater” is deeply ingrained and evolved human behavior, much of which is not likely to change. Scientists are perhaps the most hypocritical because they understand the global environmental problems, have a solid concept of how their lifestyle influences the environment and still continue to use more than their share. I am a “cheater.”

Still there are some positive aspects to travelling to developing countries to do our work. We are much like any other eco-tourists, albeit more educated in the subject of ecology. We spend money in developing countries. W are different because we work with the locals, pass information and training to those who have less access to research universities and all their benefits. We are the same because we come to see the last places on earth that have been minimally impacted by humans, and resent others who despoil our private natural experiences. Like all eco-tourists we resent the presence of people while we ourselves make the last places on earth a little less wild.

The compulsion to research in exotic parts of the world has among other things, caused researchers to contract exotic tropical diseases, torn apart personal relationships, and kept some from advancing in their careers. Some ecological research trips are conducted under dangerous and extremely primitive conditions, require an exhausting schedule of mind-numbing work, and are physically and psychologically draining. Some research is done in dangerous political areas; guerillas and rebels tend to favor hiding in remote, relatively pristine natural areas. The most extreme research expeditions still are worthy of the status of a National Geographic special.
Much of this kind of extreme ecology seems testosterone-driven. It is mostly, but not only men who have fallen under the spell of such extreme study areas. Some will undergo tremendous hardship to ask a scientific question that could be answered much closer to home. Take for example much Arctic and Antarctic research. Many of the questions could be approached by study of high-altitude habitats in the United States and Europe. The justification for some of the grant proposals (what we call intellectual merit and broader impacts) often seems contrived. The grant agencies are as influenced by the romance and adventure of this extreme research as are many researchers and still are fond of funding such ventures.

The exotic research casts such a strong spell, ecologists go through the tedious process of writing grants, begging leaves of absence, leaving behind family and eagerly pursue the next trip. The adventure is as addicting as the possibility of unique scientific discovery. Being able to tell an impressive story to fellow researchers at the next scientific conference is an additional reward.
Sometimes, however, the only way to accomplish a research project is to travel to an exotic locale. The frog extinctions of Central America are a case in point. As the wave of extinctions spreads down Central America, the possibility of ever studying these animals in the wild and how they are related to their environment disappears as well. Many researchers who study tropical species have found themselves working in front of a wave of extinction; they rush to document species and ecosystems that are rapidly disappearing and may never be seen in the wild again.

This global spread of extinction has let to ecological “swat teams” that rush to collect as many unique species as possible, and document ecosystems before they disappear. These groups of specialists are made of taxonomists of various specializations (for example a botanist, a mammalogist and an entomologist). They work in front of the path of loggers and developers in the highest diversity habitats on earth. This can be depressing work. The swat team rushes to take specimens, usually not living, before the species disappears from earth forever. Our group was a similar “swat team” rushing in front of the disease wave.