ReviewNature ecology & evolution2025
Scientist engagement and the knowledge-action gap.
Review in Nature ecology & evolution, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Uncovering the role of preventive health services utilization in protecting older adults from heat-related depressive risks.BMC geriatrics · 2026Article
- Ethics and action pathways for psychologists in a time of climate crisis.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Quantophrenia and the Promises of Genetics: Do Research Practices (Dis)advantage the «Conservation» of Species?Evolutionary applications · 2025Article
- The timeframe of prediction for eco-evolutionary dynamics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Six actions for ecologists in times of planetary crisis.Nature ecology & evolution · 2025Article
- The end of long-term ecological data?PLoS biology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The combined gravity of biodiversity loss and climate change keeps increasing. As the approaching catastrophe has never looked so alarming, the amount of scientific knowledge about the bioclimatic crisis is still rising exponentially. Here we reflect on how researchers in ecology or climate science behave amid this crisis. In face of the disproportionality between how much scientists know and how little they engage, we discuss four barriers that may underlie the decoupling of scientific awareness from concrete action. We then reflect on the potency of rational thinking to trigger engagement on its own, and question whether more scientific knowledge can be the tipping point towards radical changes within society. Our observations challenge the tenet that a better understanding of what surrounds us is necessary to protect it efficiently. With the environmental cost of scientific research itself as an additional factor that must be considered, we suggest there is an urgent need for researchers to collectively reflect on their situation and decide how to redirect their actions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39304789What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.