View in EDS

Remote‐Control Science in Ecology: A Hidden Face of Scientific Neocolonialism.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Remote‐Control Science in Ecology: A Hidden Face of Scientific Neocolonialism.
Authors: Dáttilo, Wesley1,2 (AUTHOR) wesley.dattilo@inecol.mx, Rivera‐Núñez, Tlacaelel3 (AUTHOR) aaron.rivera@inecol.mx
Source: Ecology Letters. Oct2025, Vol. 28 Issue 10, p1-4. 4p.
Subject Terms: *NEOCOLONIALISM, *LOCAL knowledge, *TRADITIONAL ecological knowledge, *HUMAN ecology
Abstract: While parachute and helicopter science have been condemned for marginalizing researchers from the Global South, we argue that a new practice, which we call "remote‐control science", is becoming increasingly common. In this model, researchers frequently based in the Global North retain decision‐making power over questions, methods, funding, and publications without being physically present in the study sites. Local collaborators, despite leading fieldwork, are often relegated to marginal roles with limited resources and authorship recognition. Remote‐control science is especially evident in large‐scale and macroecological studies, where global datasets are rapidly assembled while local knowledge and validation are overlooked. These dynamics are not limited to North–South relations: they also occur within and between countries, when well‐funded scientific urban institutions overshadow peripheral ones. We identify the risks of this practice and propose actions to promote more equitable collaborations: early involvement, recognition of local knowledge, fair authorship, capacity building, and improved funding. Confronting remote‐control science is essential for decolonizing ecology. We introduce the concept of "remote‐control science" as a modern form of scientific neocolonialism in ecology, where researchers, preferably from the Global North, control projects in the Global South without being physically present. This model marginalises local scientists, overlooks Indigenous and local knowledge, and concentrates power over funding, methods, and publications. We discuss its negative implications and propose practical actions to promote equitable, inclusive, and decolonized ecological research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Database: Academic Search Index
Description
Abstract:While parachute and helicopter science have been condemned for marginalizing researchers from the Global South, we argue that a new practice, which we call "remote‐control science", is becoming increasingly common. In this model, researchers frequently based in the Global North retain decision‐making power over questions, methods, funding, and publications without being physically present in the study sites. Local collaborators, despite leading fieldwork, are often relegated to marginal roles with limited resources and authorship recognition. Remote‐control science is especially evident in large‐scale and macroecological studies, where global datasets are rapidly assembled while local knowledge and validation are overlooked. These dynamics are not limited to North–South relations: they also occur within and between countries, when well‐funded scientific urban institutions overshadow peripheral ones. We identify the risks of this practice and propose actions to promote more equitable collaborations: early involvement, recognition of local knowledge, fair authorship, capacity building, and improved funding. Confronting remote‐control science is essential for decolonizing ecology. We introduce the concept of "remote‐control science" as a modern form of scientific neocolonialism in ecology, where researchers, preferably from the Global North, control projects in the Global South without being physically present. This model marginalises local scientists, overlooks Indigenous and local knowledge, and concentrates power over funding, methods, and publications. We discuss its negative implications and propose practical actions to promote equitable, inclusive, and decolonized ecological research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:1461023X
DOI:10.1111/ele.70227