Spiders Bug Insect Researchers, Too

Even entomologists can't stomach some creepy-crawlies

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Retired entomologist Rick Vetter understands that not everyone shares his passion for spiders. But he was surprised to learn that even some of his colleagues, who willingly study six-legged insects, abhor eight-legged arachnids.

Vetter first noticed the spider antipathy during his career at the University of California, Riverside, where his colleagues sometimes recoiled in horror at his brown recluses and black widows.

Intrigued, Vetter arranged a survey of 41 spider-fearing entomologists. Most of their aversions qualified as a mild dislike, but some ranked as full-blown, debilitating arachnophobia, Vetter reported in American Entomologist. As is common with phobias, many of the scientists traced their fears to a traumatic childhood experience.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Asked to score 30 animals on likability, the respondents ranked spiders 29th. (Only ticks drew more scorn.) Among the reasons given for detesting arachnids: the spiders' many legs and the “unsettling” ways they move. “Even filling out the survey creeped me out,” one researcher wrote.

Rachel Nuwer is a science journalist and author. Her latest book is I Feel Love: MDMA and the Quest for Connection in a Fractured World (Bloomsbury, 2023). Follow her on Bluesky @rachelnuwer.bsky.social

More by Rachel Nuwer
Scientific American Magazine Vol 309 Issue 6This article was published with the title “Bugs, Yes. Spiders, No” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 309 No. 6 (), p. 17
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1213-17

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe