ArticleEcology and evolution2026
Where We Go From Here: Harnessing Queer Perspectives to Advance Practice in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology.
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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- There is No Consensus on Biological Sex.Ecology letters · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What 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.