Oddball Science: Why Studies of Unusual Evolutionary Phenomena Are Crucial

Abstract

Concerns about the US budget deficit are pushing government research funding toward utilitarian and translational research at the expense of basic science (Hand et al. 2013). Science funding decisions are increasingly at risk of becoming politicized, and reductions in basic science funding are often justified as eliminating wasteful government spending. Indeed, critics have named several government-funded basic research projects as examples of waste (e.g., Fahrenthold 2013). Recent examples include studies on duck penises, shrimp running on a treadmill, robotic squirrels, and snail sex. The criticized programs are typically studies of organisms with unusual morphologies or behaviors that have no obvious application to society. The appeal of such criticism is obvious; at first glance, studies of odd evolutionary topics seem frivolous, even wasteful, especially in tough economic times and when compared with applied science intended to cure disease, develop renewable energy, or improve agriculture. The temptation to argue that the federal government should fund only science with a foreseeable benefit is understandable, especially because guidelines of the National Science Foundation (NSF) require reporting the economic impacts of government-funded research in all fields. Some biology researchers have even suggested—misguidedly, in our opinion—that their field should address the interface between basic and applied science, with a focus on projects that address an applied challenge (Cooke 2011, Aarssen 2013). Furthermore, Aarssen (2013) argued that “university research—with no particular societal benefit in mind— has largely run its course” (p. 417). The problem with this view is that it assumes that human innovation arises in a logical fashion from planned research. History says otherwise: Innovations often arise from unlikely sources. This phenomenon was recognized last year with the establishment of the Golden Goose Awards for projects that may sound odd but that produce significant—usually unforeseen—health or economic benefits (Underwood 2012). Although seeking out projects that are likely to lead to applications may be a good strategy for securing funding, we maintain that reducing our ability to creatively examine unique biological phenomena will ultimately harm not only education and health but also the ability to innovate— a major driver of the global economy. The study of organisms typically centers on evolutionary innovations—the biological structures and phenomena that enable new functions or behaviors. These adaptations are often surprising and may seem bizarre, but they are the product of over 3 billion years of evolution and are often associated with the successful exploitation of new habitats. Studies of these seemingly oddball adaptations have jumpstarted myriad technological applications. They began, however, as basic scientific questions. Here, we highlight some examples that should be useful for anyone defending funding for basic biological research.