Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42016973›Full record

ArticleEcology and evolution2026

Where We Go From Here: Harnessing Queer Perspectives to Advance Practice in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.

Madeline G Eppley, Robert J Dellinger, Leila Curtis, Cesar O Estien, Lindsey Forg, Angela J Jones, Ally Swank, Andy Lee

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecology and evolution, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Madeline G EppleyDepartment of Marine and Environmental Sciences Northeastern University Marine Science Center Nahant Massachusetts USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2301-853X
Robert J DellingerDepartment of Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences University of California Los Angeles California USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-3524-4041
Leila CurtisDepartment of Marine and Environmental Sciences Northeastern University Marine Science Center Nahant Massachusetts USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4796-2376
Cesar O EstienDepartment of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management University of California Berkeley California USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8410-7371
Lindsey ForgDepartment of Marine and Environmental Sciences Northeastern University Marine Science Center Nahant Massachusetts USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6853-8575
Angela J JonesDepartment of Marine and Environmental Sciences Northeastern University Marine Science Center Nahant Massachusetts USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-7795-1552
Ally SwankDepartment of Biology Boston University Boston Massachusetts USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3318-2376
Andy LeeDepartment of Biological Sciences Purdue University West Lafayette Indiana USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-3128-737X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this manuscript, we invite the field of ecology and evolutionary biology (EEB) to interrogate our relationship with society at large, consider the perspective of queer scientists, and take action to produce more accurate and objective science. Science and society continuously shape one another; this relationship determines what science is funded, which inquiries are pursued, and whose voices are included in the production and dissemination of knowledge. In EEB, many scientists have worked to address biases that originated from and were legitimized by societal norms. Here, we investigate this science-society relationship further by exploring how this relationship has historically impacted and continually impacts LGBTQ+ people. Using illustrative examples, we discuss societal trends and their influence on science over time, current biases in interpreting data, and the downstream impacts on policy. To move beyond inclusion to an epistemological intervention, we propose a framework that expands the conceptual boundaries of what is considered scientific knowledge and actively considers the political dimensions of research inquiries. We draw on our queer lived experiences to outline six principles to confront existing biases and produce better science: (1) recognize intersections between systems of oppression; (2) incorporate queer knowledges into scientific thought; (3) challenge biased (e.g., binary, deterministic) frameworks; (4) understand that language and hypothesis framing shape both science and its societal interpretation; (5) embed ethics and political responsibility in the development of research inquiries; (6) accept that we do not need answers for everything. To implement these principles, we provide guidance for individual and collective actions in the classroom, academic societies, and research. By integrating these principles within mainstream scientific practice, we can strengthen the reciprocal relationship between science and society, where advances in one transform the other, collectively moving towards knowledge that is more accurate, reproducible, and inclusive.

Indexed as

biasequity and inclusionphilosophy of sciencequeer ecologyscience policySTEM education

Identifiers

PMID42016973
PMCPMC13093552

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.