Conservation researchers argue that only by being aware of our aesthetic prejudices can we set them aside when deciding which species cry out to be studied and saved. Reporting recently in the journal Conservation Biology, Morgan J. Trimble, a research fellow at the University of Pretoria in South Africa, and her colleagues examined the scientific literature for roughly 2,000 animal species in southern Africa, and uncovered evidence that scientists, like the rest of us, may be biased toward the beefcakes and beauty queens.
Assessing the publication database for the years 1994 through 2008, the researchers found 1,855 papers about chimpanzees, 1,241 on leopards and 562 about lions — but only 14 for that mammalian equivalent of the blobfish, the African manatee.
“The manatee was the least studied large mammal,” Ms. Trimble said. Speculating on a possible reason for the disparity, she said, “Most scientists are in it for the love of what they do, and a lot of them are interested in big, furry cute things.”
– Natalie Angier, New York Times.
I don’t doubt the idea presented by this article at all. It makes perfect sense that conservationists would work harder to protect cute animals than ugly ones.
But I think the evidence cited above is a particularly bad example, and — and maybe I’m missing something here — strikes me as a pretty severe lapse in logic. I mean, what besides ugliness distinguishes the manatee from chimps, leopards and lions that just might make people less likely to study it in-depth?
Could it be that manatees live in water? Am I nuts? Doesn’t it seem perfectly reasonable to expect human scientists would be more likely to study animals they can observe without strapping on SCUBA gear?
Plus, you know, I’m sure lots of people find manatees plenty attractive. Look at the thing:
Tedquarters 
Aw, that is an adorable manatee.
That manatee looks like it’s crossing its arms as if to say “fine, don’t study me, I’ll just go sulk over in the corner of this pool.”
Google Scholar shows 3,930 hits for “manatee” since 2000 when you check off the “Biology, Life Science and Environmental Science” filter. “Dolphin” gets you 15,900 hits. “Sea otter”? 10,200.
That seems like a better way of proving that, but aren’t there way more dolphins and sea otters around than manatees?
Yup, but that in itself is a pretty good argument for directing research towards manatees, since they could, ya know, disappear. Dolphins, of course, are a special case when it comes to research, since they might be the most intelligent non-primates on the planet (and they might be smarter than all primates outside of humans), but sea otters don’t seem to be such a scientific boon. Of course, they are off-the-hizzle G-D ADORABLE.
But count me as someone who thinks manatees are cute, too.
Actually, after a trip to wikipedia, manatees are listed as “vulnerable” while sea otters are “endangered,” which is the more serious of the two designations. However, after poking around on the internet, it looks like both species seem to have similar populations in the wild, somewhere more towards the 3000 end of the 2000-3000 range. Why are otters given the more serious designation? Their numbers have rebounded since their designation, but, perhaps, they are getting preferrential treatment due to their cuteness.
I have just bee prompted to learn some stuff about marine mammals that I didn’t know. Thanks, Ted!