Bigger Voter Turnout Gets Better Fish Leader
Schools of fish faced with two choices of leader made better picks when there were more fish involved in making the decision. Rachel Kremen reports
SUBSCRIBE TO Science Quickly
[The following is an exact transcript of this podcast.]
Researchers have discovered that improving voter turnout tends to result in better decision-making—at least amongst fish. A recent study of stickleback found that they select a leader by consensus and, the more fish in the pool, the more likely they’ll make a good choice.
In the experiment, a school of fish was presented with two mock candidates for leader. One of the fake fish swam left, the other right. The pack of real fish was then allowed to decide which leader to follow. According to the study, which was published recently in the journal Current Biology, the stickleback tended to follow the candidate that looked the healthiest. Larger or fatter fish, for example, were usually chosen over smaller fish. Fish with spots—often a telltale sign of disease—generally lost out to a non-spotty adversary. The fish also seemed to have a preference for a more richly colored candidate, though the researchers say they have yet to determine why. Maybe his environmental record won them over?
—Rachel Kremen
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.
60-Second Science is a daily podcast. Subscribe to this Podcast:
RSS | iTunes
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.
