Search

The use of English as the common language of science represents a major impediment to maximising the contribution of non-native English speakers to science. Yet few studies have quantified the consequences of language barriers on the career development of researchers who are non-native English speakers. By surveying 908 researchers in environmental sciences, this study estimates and compares the amount of effort required to conduct scientific activities in English between researchers from different countries and, thus, different linguistic and economic backgrounds. Our survey demonstrates that non-native English speakers, especially early in their careers, spend more effort than native English speakers in conducting scientific activities, from reading and writing papers and preparing presentations in English, to disseminating research in multiple languages. Language barriers can also cause them not to attend, or give oral presentations at, international conferences conducted in English. We urge scientific communities to recognise and tackle these disadvantages to release the untapped potential of non-native English speakers in science. This study also proposes potential solutions that can be implemented today by individuals, institutions, journals, funders, and conferences. Please see the Supporting information files (S2–S6 Text) for Alternative Language Abstracts and Figs 5 and 6. This study reveals that non-native English speakers, especially early in their careers, spend more effort than native English speakers in conducting scientific activities, from reading and writing papers and preparing presentations in English, to disseminating research in multiple languages. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Having a central scientific language remains crucial for advancing and globally sharing science. Nevertheless, maintaining one dominant language also creates barriers to accessing scientific careers and knowledge. From an interdisciplinary perspective, we describe how, when, and why to make scientific literature more readily available in multiple languages through the practice of translation. We broadly review the advantages and limitations of neural machine translation systems and propose that translation can serve as both a short- and a long-term solution for making science more resilient, accessible, globally representative, and impactful beyond the academy. We outline actions that individuals and institutions can take to support multilingual science and scientists, including structural changes that encourage and value translating scientific literature. In the long term, improvements to machine translation technologies and collective efforts to change academic norms can transform a monolingual scientific hub into a multilingual scientific network. Translations are available in the supplemental material. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Field biology is an area of research that involves working directly with living organisms in situ through a practice known as "fieldwork." Conducting fieldwork often requires complex logistical planning within multiregional or multinational teams, interacting with local communities at field sites, and collaborative research led by one or a few of the core team members. However, existing power imbalances stemming from geopolitical history, discrimination, and professional position, among other factors, perpetuate inequities when conducting these research endeavors. After reflecting on our own research programs, we propose four general principles to guide equitable, inclusive, ethical, and safe practices in field biology: be collaborative, be respectful, be legal, and be safe. Although many biologists already structure their field programs around these principles or similar values, executing equitable research practices can prove challenging and requires careful consideration, especially by those in positions with relatively greater privilege. Based on experiences and input from a diverse group of global collaborators, we provide suggestions for action-oriented approaches to make field biology more equitable, with particular attention to how those with greater privilege can contribute. While we acknowledge that not all suggestions will be applicable to every institution or program, we hope that they will generate discussions and provide a baseline for training in proactive, equitable fieldwork practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The success of a scientist depends on their production of scientific papers and the impact factor of the journal in which they publish. Because most major scientific journals are published in English, success is related to publishing in this language. Currently, 98% of publications in science are written in English, including researchers from English as a Foreign Language (EFL) countries. Colombia is among the countries with the lowest English proficiency in the world. Thus, understanding the disadvantages that Colombians face in publishing is crucial to reducing global inequality in science. This paper quantifies the disadvantages that result from the language hegemony in scientific publishing by examining the additional costs that communicating in English creates in the production of articles. It was identified that more than 90% of the scientific articles published by Colombian researchers are in English, and that publishing in a second language creates additional financial costs to Colombian doctoral students and results in problems with reading comprehension, writing ease and time, and anxiety. Rejection or revision of their articles because of the English grammar was reported by 43.5% of the doctoral students, and 33% elected not to attend international conferences and meetings due to the mandatory use of English in oral presentations. Finally, among the translation/editing services reviewed, the cost per article is between one-quarter and one-half of a doctoral monthly salary in Colombia. Of particular note, we identified a positive correlation between English proficiency and higher socioeconomic origin of the researcher. Overall, this study exhibits the negative consequences of hegemony of English that preserves the global gap in science. Although having a common language is important for science communication, generating multilinguistic alternatives would promote diversity while conserving a communication channel. Such an effort should come from different actors and should not fall solely on EFL researchers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Environmental temperature has fitness consequences on ectotherm development, ecology and behaviour. Amphibians are especially vulnerable because thermoregulation often trades with appropriate water balance. Although substantial research has evaluated the effect of temperature in amphibian locomotion and physiological limits, there is little information about amphibians living under extreme temperature conditions. Leptodactylus lithonaetes is a frog allegedly specialised to forage and breed on dark granitic outcrops and associated puddles, which reach environmental temperatures well above 40 °C. Adults can select thermally favourable microhabitats during the day while tadpoles are constrained to rock puddles and associated temperature fluctuations; we thus established microhabitat temperatures and tested whether the critical thermal maximum (CTmax) of L. lithonaetes is higher in tadpoles compared to adults. In addition, we evaluated the effect of water temperature on locomotor performance of tadpoles. Contrary to our expectations, puddle temperatures were comparable and even lower than those temperatures measured in the microhabitats used by adults in the daytime. Nonetheless, the CTmax was 42.3 °C for tadpoles and 39.7 °C for adults. Regarding locomotor performance, maximum speed and maximum distance travelled by tadpoles peaked around 34 °C, approximately 1 °C below the maximum puddle temperatures registered in the puddles. In conclusion, L. lithonaetes tadpoles have a higher CTmax compared to adults, suggesting a longer exposure to extreme temperatures that lead to maintain their physiological performance at high temperatures. We suggest that these conditions are adaptations to face the strong selection forces driven by this granitic habitat. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Toxicity is widespread among living organisms, and evolves as a multimodal phenotype. Part of this phenotype is the ability to avoid self‐intoxication (autoresistance). Evolving toxin resistance can involve fitness tradeoffs, so autoresistance is often expected to evolve gradually and in tandem with toxicity, resulting in a correlation between the degrees of toxicity and autoresistance among toxic populations. We investigate this correlation in Phyllobates poison frogs, notorious for secreting batrachotoxin (BTX), a potent neurotoxin that targets sodium channels, using ancestral sequence reconstructions of BTX‐sensing areas of the muscular voltage‐gated sodium channel. Reconstructions suggest that BTX resistance arose at the root of Phyllobates, coinciding with the evolution of BTX secretion. After this event, little or no further evolution of autoresistance seems to have occurred, despite large increases in toxicity throughout the history of these frogs. Our results, therefore, provide no evidence in favor of an evolutionary correlation between toxicity and autoresistance, which conflicts with previous work. Future research on the functional costs and benefits of mutations putatively involved in BTX resistance, as well as their prevalence in natural populations, should shed light on the evolutionary mechanisms driving the relationship between toxicity and autoresistance in Phyllobates frogs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biological toxins are entrenched within ecosystems. Thus, animals are often exposed to such toxins, and how they adapt can be a key determinant of their evolutionary trajectories. In this review, we provide an overview of the diversity of toxin resistance mechanisms, with a focus on animals that sequester toxins from their diet and their natural predators and parasites. We propose a structured framework in which to study toxin resistance by recategorizing and reorganizing known mechanisms into avoidance, metabolism, and target categories. Then, using this framework, we review evidence regarding how animals resist four widely studied compounds: tetrodotoxin, batrachotoxin, cardiotonic steroids, and pyrrolizidine alkaloids. Based on the available data, we conclude that toxin resistance and sequestration are interrelated from both ecological and evolutionary perspectives. To conclude, we highlight open questions regarding toxin resistance and review its importance as a field. En los ecosistemas las toxinas de origen biológico son componentes intrínsecos. Por esta razón, los animales se ven expuestos frecuenciamente a dichas toxinas y la forma en que se adaptan puede ser un factor que determina su trayectoria evolutiva. Esta revisión ofrece una visión general de la diversidad de mecanismos de resistencia a toxinas, centrándose en animales que secuestran toxinas de su dieta y en sus depredadores y parásitos naturales. En este texto se propone un marco estructural para estudiar la resistencia a toxinas mediante la recategorización y reorganización de mecanismos conocidos en categorías de: evación, metabolismo y moléculas diana. A continuación, utilizando este marco, revisamos la literatura científica en busca de evidencia sobre cómo los animales resisten a cuatro compuestos ampliamente estudiados: tetrodotoxina, batracotoxina, esteroides cardiotónicos y alcaloides de pirrolizidina. A partir de los datos disponibles, llegamos a la conclusión de que la resistencia y la retención de toxinas están interrelacionadas tanto desde el punto de vista ecológico como evolutivo. Por último, destacamos algunas preguntas abiertas en torno a la resistencia a las toxinas y resaltamos su importancia como campo de estudio en el futuro. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]