Rare Designation May Not Be Well-Done

A study in the journal Public Library of Science ONE found that calling an endangered species "rare" may focus the kind of attention on it that could speed its demise. Christie Nicholson reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

[The following is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

Which would you rather see: a rare Nepalese gharial or a common vole? Even without knowing what these animals are, you might be more intrigued by the gharial, simply because it is rare. This is the conclusion of research published in the journal Public Library of Science ONE.

The researchers say that labeling endangered animals as “rare,” may harm the species, raising its value and so putting it at greater risk of being exploited within the illegal pet-trade, for either medicines or exotic zoos.


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.


Scientists created a Web site where users could view images of either “rare” or “common” animals. When users clicked on one of the two options, up popped a progress bar showing the images in the process of downloading. But, irritatingly, the download took a whopping six minutes (although users did have the option to cancel). When the download finally completed, the images were designed not to show up!

Well, significantly more users chose the rare slideshow, waited for it to download and often tried again after it didn’t work. So, maybe to save the endangered gharial, we ought to just call it just a tired, ugly crocodile.

—Christie Nicholson

NOTE:  For more on endangered species please read our blog, 60-Second Extinction Countdown.

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