Gender can shape how TAs are evaluated, study finds

By Syl Kacapyr 

Cornell Engineering

February 28, 2024

FacebookTwitterEmailShare

Male teaching assistants are more likely to receive higher ratings than their female counterparts, and both genders are perceived as more valuable when exhibiting traits historically associated with their respective roles in society, a Cornell study finds.

The study of doctoral engineering TA evaluations was published Jan. 29 in the International Journal of STEM Education and shows how the well-studied biases in assessments of faculty can occur in other parts of academia.

“Growing up as a girl in this culture, you get a lot of messages about where you do and don’t belong,” said Lisa Schneider-Bentley, director of Engineering Learning Initiatives at Cornell Engineering and co-author of the study. “We want to build awareness around the potential for bias in one of the key places where a young woman progressing toward an advanced degree in engineering is getting feedback, which may have a strong encouraging or discouraging impact on her persistence on that pathway.”

The study examined five semesters’ worth of TA evaluations and used statistical models to compare survey questions about specific skills with overall quality ratings for male- and female-identifying TAs. Undergraduates evaluating their TAs were asked to provide numerical ratings for specific questions about TA performance associated with traits such as knowledge, teaching strategies, preparedness and fairness. In addition, narrative prompts included “Comment on the TA’s teaching strengths as well as areas in which improvement is needed” and “Comment on the TA’s communication strategies.”

The analysis found that across all performance-based survey questions, male TAs had a higher likelihood of receiving a better rating than their female counterparts, and both genders were valued more for behaviors congruent with roles historically ascribed to them. For instance, female TAs tended to receive lower overall quality ratings if they were assessed as poor communicators or unsupportive, while males scored lower if they were seen as having low levels of knowledge or expertise.

“We saw that females were more likely to have reduced ratings in general, and their overall TA ratings were further reduced if they weren’t doing things like actively checking in on students or providing periodic summaries and visual aids,” said Celia Evans, associate director of Engineering Learning Initiatives and lead author of the study. “But we also saw that if males weren’t enacting an ‘I’m in charge’ sort of behavior, their overall TA quality ratings were likely to be lower relative to males who were.”

Engineering Learning Initiatives promotes evidence-based teaching and learning within Cornell Engineering, and its programs include new practices based on the study’s results. Mid-semester evaluations now place rating-scale questions last on the survey, and invite students to reflect more deeply about specific interactions with TAs before giving them an overall rating.

“We want students to give feedback about the teaching, not about the person, and to be specific about what the TAs did and didn’t do well in the classroom,” Evans said. “That’s the most valuable part of the evaluation and we hope having that first can reduce the bias we see in the numerical ratings.”

Another evidence-supported change is an update to evaluation instructions, which now include a reminder for students to consider how their answers could be influenced by implicit biases and expectations associated with culture, race, ethnicity and gender.

“Most biases are unconscious, a result of the sum total of our lived experience,” Evans said, “as long as there are perceived notions that people should and shouldn’t be in certain roles, there’s a high probability that biases will persist. Regardless of intent, the biases uncovered in this study represent barriers to the advancement of, primarily, young women engineers.”

Schneider-Bentley said the study was an opportunity to better understand bias-related patterns in student evaluations of graduate TAs’ teaching effectiveness.

“It was important to publish the study so that others could be encouraged to also employ evidence-supported practices to reduce bias, especially in STEM disciplines where women and other populations are underrepresented,” Schneider-Bentley said. “Teaching evaluations can influence the decisions that women in engineering make, or that others make, about their futures. At Cornell Engineering, we want to make a positive difference.”

Also contributing to the study were TA consultants with Engineering Learning Initiatives, Katherine Adler, Ph.D. ’22, and Doga Yucalan, Ph.D. ’22.

The study was published with financial assistance from the Cornell University Library’s Open Access Publishing Fund.

Syl Kacapyr is associate director of marketing and communications for Cornell Engineering.

Endocrine Society supports federal legislation protecting IVF access

Reproductive endocrinologists play key role in diagnosing and treating infertility

28-Feb-2024 9:00 AM EST, by Endocrine Society

Newswise — WASHINGTON—The Endocrine Society is calling for members of Congress to support federal legislation protecting access to in vitro fertilization (IVF).

The Access to Family Building Act (S.3612/H.R.7056), proposed by Sens. Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Patty Murray (D-WA), and Rep. Susan Wild (D-PA), would ensure people can access safe, effective IVF and other assisted reproductive technologies to start or grow their families.

Families’ access to IVF services is being threatened by an Alabama State Supreme Court ruling that frozen embryos created during the IVF process are “children” under state law.

About 2.3 percent of all infants born in the United States each year are conceived using assisted reproductive technology, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

IVF, the main type of assisted reproductive technology, involves extracting a woman’s eggs, fertilizing the eggs in the laboratory, and transferring the resulting embryos into the woman’s uterus.

IVF and other assisted reproductive technology procedures are performed by reproductive endocrinologists. These physicians diagnose and treat infertility and other hormonal health issues related to the reproductive system.  

As the professional organization representing endocrinologists who treat and scientists who research infertility and other hormone health conditions, the Endocrine Society’s policy priorities include protecting access to reproductive health care. 

We are encouraged to see members of Congress from both sides of the aisle considering this legislation to preserve access to IVF and other assisted reproductive technologies. Americans who wish to start or build their families need to have access to this needed medical care. Endocrinologists are essential to IVF care, and we support access for all families across the country seeking safe and effective IVF treatment.

# # #

Endocrinologists are at the core of solving the most pressing health problems of our time, from diabetes and obesity to infertility, bone health, and hormone-related cancers. The Endocrine Society is the world’s oldest and largest organization of scientists devoted to hormone research and physicians who care for people with hormone-related conditions.

The Society has more than 18,000 members, including scientists, physicians, educators, nurses and students in 122 countries. To learn more about the Society and the field of endocrinology, visit our site at www.endocrine.org. Follow us on Twitter at @TheEndoSociety and @EndoMedia.

Pharmacists Are Key Access Point for Patients Amid Alabama Ruling on IVF

February 28, 2024

Ashley Gallagher, Associate Editor

News

Article

In LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that “extrauterine embryos” are considered children, causing some infertility clinics to halt IVF processes.

According to study findings published in Reproductive Sciences, in vitro fertilization (IVF) is a quickly growing reproduction method for individuals who are faced with infertility, with an estimated nearly 10% of all children conceived through IVF in the near future.1 Pharmacists have a unique and important role in assisted reproductive technology, which includes IVF. Pharmacists serve as a key access point on educating patients about their medication usage during the IVF process.

Approximately 1 in 6 individuals globally experienced infertility at some stage of their life from 1990 to 2021, according to the World Health Organization. The lifetime prevalence, defined as those who experienced infertility at any time in their life, was estimated to be 17.5% and the period prevalence, defined as individuals who experience infertility at any given interval of time, was approximately 12.6%, according to the study. The lifetime infertility rate in North and South America was approximately 20% and the period infertility rate was 10.4%. Furthermore, there was little difference between high-income and middle- and low-income countries at 17.8% and 16.5% lifetime infertility, respectively, and 12.6% for period infertility in both.2

According to Apthorp, a fertility prescription service, prescription medicine is necessary at various stages in IVF, and the proper medication must be taken at the correct time.3 Most fertility clinics have a pharmacist who specializes in reproductive health and is well versed in each drug, medication use, and potential adverse events. Their role is to help educate individuals regarding the usage of the medication and address any issues that may arise, including issues with adherence, according to the Apthorp website.3,4

Drugs for IVF treatment include gonadotropins, which can increase hormones to produce eggs in the body via injection over several days. Prescriptions can also include clomiphene citrate, dopamine agonists, and gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogs, and a missed dose can affect the overall success rate of IVF.4

New legal challenges in Alabama, however, are having a drastic effect on IVF in the state. The Alabama Supreme Court has ruled that extrauterine embryos (i.e., embryos created and frozen before implantation in IVF) are considered children under the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act.5

This has caused multiple infertility clinics to pause their IVF procedures due to “fear that their patients and doctors could face prosecution or punitive damages,” according to a press release from RESOLVE: The National Infertility Association. This included the University of Alabama at Birmingham, according to the release.6

According to Goodwin Procter LLP, the case included 3 couples who received IVF treatment at The Center for Reproductive Medicine, which included the creation of multiple embryos with some being implanted and some remaining in cryogenic storage. In 2020, after an unauthorized individual removed the embryos improperly, they were destroyed, causing the couples to sue the hospital and the IVF clinic under the Wrongful Death of a Minor Act.7 Due to the state supreme court ruling, there could be implications for other IVF clinics in Alabama to be held liable for wrongful death of a minor due to the destruction of the extrauterine embryos. There is a potential for other states to make similar rulings.7

This ruling has many implications and potential barriers for IVF clinics, personnel, and pharmacies that work with infertility and IVF therapy. According to Goodwin Procter LLP, potential scrutiny could come from regulators in Alabama including audits, investigative authorities, and inquiry into facility security, internal protocols, security measures, and storage.7 It is essential for pharmacists, who are more accessible to patients than fertility physicians,3 to be aware of these developments regarding IVF policy Alabama as well as other states. This allows them to be able to answer and ease any questions or concerns from patients who may not be as well versed in these implications and require more assistance to make informed decisions.

References

1. Kushnir VA, Smith GD, Adashi EY. The Future of IVF: The New Normal in Human Reproduction. Reprod Sci. 2022;29(3):849-856. doi:10.1007/s43032-021-00829-3

2. World Health Organization. Infertility prevalence estimates, 1990–2021. 2023. Accessed February 26, 2024. https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/366700/9789240068315-eng.pdf?sequence=1

3. Apthorp. IVF Medication: Your Pharmacist’s Role in Assisted Reproductive Technology. Accessed February 26, 2024. https://apthorprx.com/fertility-medication/ivf-medication-your-pharmacists-role-in-assisted-reproductive-technology/#:~:text=A%20pharmacist%20can%20be%20a,safest%20location%20on%20the%20body

4. Apthorp. Fertility Medication and Your Pharmacist: 3 Helpful Questions to Ask. Accessed February 26, 2024. https://apthorprx.com/fertility-medication/fertility-medications-your-pharmacist-3-helpful-questions-to-ask/

5. FindLaw.com. Alabama Code Title 6. Civil Practice § 6-5-391. Updated December 30, 2022. Accessed February 27, 2024. https://codes.findlaw.com/al/title-6-civil-practice/al-code-sect-6-5-391/

6. Statement from RESOLVE on Pause of IVF Procedures at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. News release. February 21, 2024. Accessed February 27, 2024. https://resolve.org/statement-from-resolve-on-pause-of-ivf-procedures-at-the-university-of-alabama-at-birmingham/

7. Lee S, Santos JA, Wetzel M, Brendel AM. Alabama IVF Clinics: Potential Implications of the LePage Case. Goodwin Law. February 23, 2024. Accessed February 27, 2024. https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/insights/publications/2024/02/alerts-lifesciences-hltc-lepage-implications

The War on Women Didn’t Stop With Overturning Roe


From bounty-hunters to “fetal personhood” bills, GOP state lawmakers are finding new ways to criminalize not only terminating pregnancies, but nearly all forms of bodily autonomy.


Andrea Grimes 

DAME

Feb 28, 2024

Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, I’ve gotten really obsessed with survival competition TV. The psychology driving this isn’t exactly subtle; watching low-stakes demonstrations of human resilience while the world is falling apart lends me some sense of reassurance that at least some of us can, well, survive.

My favorite moment comes about halfway through any given season of Survivor, when the contestants—by this time filthy and starving and literally fighting for scraps—are given the opportunity to compete for luxuries like soap, steaks, or blankets. Even from the comfort of my couch, I feel the winners’ relief in a visceral, almost palpable way. But these “luxuries,” which are really basic necessities, never last: Soap gets used up, steaks get eaten, and blankets get soaked or stolen. Soon, it’s back to standard-operating misery, and the players who remain adapt anew.

This is what humans do. Whether we’re vying for a million-dollar prize or just trying to see another sunrise, some of us can find ways to put up with almost anything. It’s both heartening and terrifying, considering some of us never stop finding ways to make each other miserable.

It wasn’t enough for the anti-abortion lobby and their political allies to end federal protections for (some) abortion rights. It was never going to be enough, as evidenced by the long slate of new and expanded abortion bans, criminalization efforts, and attempts to codify fetal personhood that are already in motion. A selection of some of the worst:Restrictions on abortion-related travel and support began in earnest after the fall of Roe, and are only growing more popular among anti-abortion Republicans, who are pushing these Big Brother–style bans at the state, county, and local levels, with varying degrees of consequences for facilitating or funding out-of-state travel for abortion care—even for private employers who wish to support health-care access for their workers.
Some politicians have branded these proposals as “anti-trafficking” efforts, especially when they target young people, who by virtue of their age and social positions are overwhelmingly reliant on the support of adults to access abortion care outside of their home geographies. Throwing the “trafficking” boogeyman into the messaging mix—most recently in Mississippi, but it won’t be the last time we see this—is a blatant scare tactic, a solution-in-search-of-a-problem wholly unsupported by evidence. Not that that matters. The specter of “trafficking” has also been invoked when it comes to supporting access to medication abortion, as in Oklahoma, where Republican Jim Olsen has proposed a bill to make a felony out of “trafficking or attempting to traffic abortion-inducing drugs.” The hope is, of course, that the public—and the law—begins to associate medication abortion, which is incredibly safe, with the “trafficking” of potentially deadly substances, such as fentanyl.

State- and neighbor-on-neighbor, “bounty-hunter” surveillance of people’s private medical decisions is at the heart of much of what we’ll see this year. There’s already Missouri Republican Mike Moon’s proposal to outlaw women who’ve had abortions from enrolling in Medicaid—forever—and an Oklahoma bill that would create a database of women who’ve had abortions. In California, some law enforcement agencies continue to provide license plate data to out-of-state entities looking to track abortion patients, in defiance of state law.

Republicans are doing all they can to block efforts, even sometimes GOP-backed efforts, to add already narrow exceptions for rape, incest, and the health of pregnant people to existing abortion bans, as in Tennessee and Missouri, or to remove existing exceptions, as in Idaho.

Republicans are also pushing the concept of “fetal personhood,” attempting to classify any pregnancy from the moment of conception onward as a wholly separate individual entitled to full legal rights—an explicit gateway to prosecuting people for pregnancy loss under practically any circumstances. Iowa Republicans are behind a new attempt to codify fetal personhood, as are Oklahoma Republicans, who are backing a constitutional amendment for fetal personhood. In Florida, Republicans have rejected changes to a proposed “wrongful death” bill that would exempt abortion providers and supporters from being implicated in pregnancy losses. Most recently, in Alabama, the state Supreme Court awarded personhood to frozen embryos, which could have a huge impact on in vitro fertilization as well.

In states where abortion rights could be reinstated or expanded through ballot measures or constitutional amendments, such as in Missouri, Republicans remain committed to subverting voters by changing the rules to prevent the public—who have overwhelmingly supported abortion rights and access when asked—from weighing in. In Montana, anti-abortion state officials are lobbying hard to quash an abortion rights ballot measure, and even where abortion rights have won at the polls, as in Ohio, Republicans are still fighting to find ways to keep the question of abortion rights out of the hands of voters, and under the exclusive purview of anti-abortion politicians.

There are plenty of attempts to pass bog-standard abortion bans, too: in Kansas and in Florida as well as New Hampshire, where a proposal to ban abortions after 15 days recently tanked largely because the Republican who proposed it acknowledged she didn’t really read her bill before filing it.

At the national level, we should assume that anti-abortion forces will mobilize whatever means necessary to implement the most stringent possible abortion bans they think they can get away with, as soon as they can pull them off—and then get stricter from there once the baseline has been set. That’ll be easier with a Republican in the White House, which could grease the skids for enforcing the Comstock Act or passing a federal abortion ban, support for which is a prerequisite for Republican electoral success at the national level. And there are still plenty of Democrats who remain so squeamish about abortion that they can hardly say the word unless it comes with stigmatizing caveats, negotiating a so-called “compromise” national ban, likely in the second trimester, possible even without a Republican president. Since the Supreme Court has already been bought and paid for on the anti-abortion front, even folks living in supposedly abortion-friendly geographies will be facing life under these new bans and restrictions.

Not all—and perhaps not even most—of these proposals will make it into law this year. Maybe not even next year. Many of them sound so outlandish that it’s tempting for folks who don’t know better to write them off as the work of unhinged extremists with no hope of success.

But recall what they said about overturning Roe v. Wade—that the law of the land would never be overruled. For decades, the activists, medical professionals, and pro-abortion leaders who warned about Roe’s impending demise were told they were overreacting to a few fringe zealots. That it would somehow be possible to find common ground between those who believe the government has no right to force us to stay pregnant against their will, and those who would see people who have abortions, and their doctors and even supporters, prosecuted for murder.

The anti-abortion movement has never been and is not now driven by compassionate people looking to find consensus on a difficult issue. It is driven by misogynistic bigots who aim to mold the United States into a white supremacist, conservative Christian theocracy. These are not shady machinators whose identities and motivations are unknowable. We know their names: Leonard Leo, the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, Jonathan Mitchell, and the Alliance Defending Freedom, among others. They are open about this; their plan even has a name—Project 2025—and its own website. For their friends, they dole out billions in campaign funds and dark money, buy cushy legal placements, and secure primo political positions.

These people will only be stopped by being stopped. There’s no hoping that one sunny day sometime soon, Republican politicians and the Americans who support them will simply wake up and decide that this time, just this once, they’ve gone too far.

They do not mind that abortion bans kill, maim, and traumatize pregnant people, because that’s what abortion bans are meant to do. Hell, they know that they don’t even need to pass abortion bans to dissuade pregnant people from trying to access care, to scare abortion supporters out of helping others access care, or to terrorize doctors out of saving their pregnant patients’ lives. Threats will work well enough for now; in time, they hope to do enough additional damage to the democratic project through gerrymandering and disenfranchisement that growing public support for abortion rights—and there’s plenty of it, even in supposedly “red” geographies—won’t matter in most places.

I say this not in despair, but rather in hope: There is so much we can do to stem the tide of abortion bans and restrictions, if only we will embrace pro-abortion politics with full hearts and loud voices. We must counter our own human instincts and refuse to adapt to the new anti-abortion normal. We can’t play politics on anti-abortion terms, scrambling for scraps, when doing so means putting pregnant people’s real lives at risk.

We have to pull ourselves out of survival mode if we’re going to change the game entirely.

About the Author

Andrea Grimes is a feminist journalist, editor, and podcaster living in Austin, Texas. Her commentaries, investigations, and analyses have appeared in the New York Times, the Texas Observer, Rewire News, Cosmopolitan, Bitch, Ms. and Jezebel, among many other publications. You can find her cussing on Twitter as @AndreaGrimes, or drinking a Bloody Mary on a sunny patio, or sometimes both.

 

Under climate change, catastrophic bushfires in Australia can strike any time

by David Bowman, The Conversation

The old fire rating system in Victoria, versus the new national system. Credit: AFDRS

Victorians were braced for the worst on Wednesday amid soaring temperatures and gusty winds, creating the state's worst fire conditions in years. Authorities have declared a "catastrophic" fire risk in some parts of the state.

At the time of writing, the Bayindeen bushfire near Ballarat was still burning out of control, almost a week after it began. It had razed 21,300 hectares, destroyed six homes and killed livestock. And more than 30,000 people in high-risk areas between Ballarat and Ararat had reportedly been told to leave their homes.

This statewide emergency is noteworthy for several reasons. First, it represent a big test of Australia's updated fire danger rating system. The new version adopted in 2022 dictates that if a fire takes hold under catastrophic conditions, people should leave an area rather than shelter in place or stay defend their homes.

The second point to note is the timing: late February, when many Australians probably thought the worst of the bushfire season was over. Climate change is bringing not just more frequent and severe fires, but longer fire seasons. That means we must stay on heightened alert for much longer than in the past.

Under catastrophic conditions, leave

The current Australian Fire Danger Rating System was implemented in September 2022. It's a nationally consistent system based on the latest scientific research.

Authorities hope the system will more accurately predict fire danger. It was also designed to more clearly communicate the danger rating to the public. For example, it involves just four danger ratings, compared to the previous six under the old Victorian regime.

"Catastrophic" fire danger—previously "code red" in Victoria—represents the worst conditions. The main message for the public under these conditions is:

"If a fire starts and takes hold, lives are likely to be lost. For your survival leave bushfire risk areas."

Under catastrophic conditions, people are advised to move to a

Lessons from Black Saturday

Australia's previous fire danger rating system was developed in the 1960s and was formally known as the McArthur Forest Fire Danger Index. It initially comprised five risk levels ranging from low-moderate to extreme. However, states were free to adapt the system to their needs, including adding extra categories.

The devastating 2009 Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria killed 173 people. Many people died after staying to defend their properties.

The tragedy prompted scrutiny of the fire danger ratings system in Victoria, and the "code red" category was added. The message under those conditions was that those living in a bushfire-prone area should leave. The first code red was declared in 2010, then another in 2019.

That system was replaced by the national system in 2022.

Don't stay and defend

Under the current fire danger rating system, catastrophic conditions mean everyone should leave an area. The leave orders currently issued in Victoria cover many thousands of people, and represent a big test of this advice.

We don't yet know how many people will heed the advice of authorities. However, at least some people have reportedly decided to stay and defend their properties.

If thousands of others do flee, what will result? Will rural roads be blocked? Do we have the infrastructure to temporarily house all those evacuees? Whether or not the fire situation escalates on Wednesday, there will be much to learn about how we deal with such threats.

Certainly, it's prudent for people in high-risk areas to leave. In hot, windy conditions, a fire could erupt and take hold in minutes. The collapse of electricity transmission towers in Victoria last week showed the vulnerability of such infrastructure in high winds. It doesn't take long for downed power lines to ignite the surrounding bush.

Is there a potential alternative to the mass relocation of people in response to a major fire risk? Yes: building communities that are sufficiently fire-proofed to withstand catastrophic fire weather.

This could be achieved through adaptation measures such as building fire bunkers and specially-designed houses. It would also involve carefully managed bushland and creating fire breaks by planting non-flammable plants. It may also include targeted cultural burning by Traditional Owners. These options require further discussion and research.

The current emergency in Victoria shows how Australia's fire seasons are changing.

It's late February and summer is almost over. The kids are back at school and the adults are back at work. It seemed southeast Australia had escaped the bad fire summer that many had feared. Few people expected this late-season emergency.

But as climate change escalates, we must expect the unexpected. In a fire-prone continent such as Australia, we can never relax in a warming world. We must be in a constant, heightened state of preparedness.

That means know your risk and prepare your home. Draw up a bushfire survival plan—think about details such as what to do with pets and who will check on vulnerable neighbors. And please, heed the advice of authorities.

Provided by The Conversation 

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

It's going to be an especially risky fire season for much of Eastern and Central Australia, says report

New methods of conservation needed to prevent the extinction of great apes

Published On:February 28, 2024

Central Bornean orangutan. Image credit: Pirataber is licensed under CC BY 4.0. 

To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/?ref=openverse.

EXPERT ANALYSIS

Study: Future coexistence with great apes will require major changes to policy and practice

Great apes, human’s closest living relatives, are knocking on the door of extinction.

Humans have hunted great apes, which include bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, destroyed their habitats, and transmitted fatal diseases to them. Now, five of the seven recognized species of great apes have been listed as Critically Endangered by the International Union for Conservation of Nature, meaning they are on the brink of extinction.

Traditional methods of conservation have helped, but these methods are no longer enough, say University of Michigan researchers John Mitani and Andrew Marshall. In collaboration with an international team of colleagues, they have suggested new routes of conservation to help ensure the survival of great apes. Their findings are published in Nature Human Behaviour.

The urgency of new routes to great ape conservation

Marshall: John and I, like many field researchers, feel a strong connection to the apes we study. We’ve been privileged to spend lots of time with them—John, primarily in Africa, and me primarily in Southeast Asia. Despite considerable effort and investment in conservation, ape populations are continuing to decline, many of them very dramatically. Five of the seven recognized taxa are now critically endangered. Rather than focusing on the current plight of apes, which is well known, we wanted to be forward looking and propose things we could do that might improve the situation.

Mitani: There is a moral imperative to do this. These are iconic species that everybody can identify with. This is because they are our closest living relatives and essentially our kin. We’re living at a time when we are losing tons of species in a mass extinction event created by us. If we can’t save these animals, then there’s really very little hope for the rest of biodiversity. I just can’t imagine a world without these animals.

Improving security of protected areas by increasing funding, fighting corruption, employing scientific/technological tactics to improve enforcement; partnering with local communities to develop tourism and working with local people who possess extensive knowledge about the habitats and behavior of great apes

Marshall: Even if we do a perfect job of protecting every protected area where great apes persist now, that’s not enough. For orangutans, which is the group that I know best, even if we were to protect every single orangutan in every protected area in perpetuity, that is not enough to ensure their long-term persistence, which means that the future of conservation must also address issues outside protected areas.

If we only think about strictly protected areas, we’re missing lots of opportunities to do good conservation. That’s one of the things that we want to draw people’s attention to: There are lots and lots of apes that live outside national parks and they are more threatened than those that live inside national parks and other protected areas. But they also deserve our care and protection.

Mitani: Another point we’re trying to make is historically, despite the fact that we’ve devoted years and years to the study of these animals, most of this has been in protected areas and away from people. We are calling for more work where it’s currently needed in areas where people are living alongside apes. The reason for this is the world has gotten a lot smaller. In my lifetime, the human population has tripled. Humans are everywhere, doing things and edging apes out as a consequence.

Protecting apes who live outside of protected areas by providing alternative crops and resources to reduce people’s reliance on ape habitat; combatting larger-scale threats (industrial mining, oil and gas, logging)

Mitani: Wherever great apes and humans come into contact and there’s conflict, inevitably the apes will lose. We’re going to have to find ways for both humans and apes to benefit. We recruited several colleagues and friends to help us with this paper, and an important one is Matt McLennan, a researcher at Oxford Brookes University and the Bulindi Chimpanzee and Community Project in Uganda. For many years Matt has worked in a small forest in Uganda where people live alongside chimpanzees. He’s trying to find ways to help people protect chimpanzees instead of harming them.

Marshall: It’s easy for conservationists to demonize “local people” as the major threats to apes. That’s problematic for all kinds of reasons. Many of the conservationists are expatriates, so there’s a colonial aspect to it—although not all conservationists are, of course, expats. It’s also true that many of the threats, even those that are immediately posed by local communities, are often due to broader market pressures, and many of us participate in those markets and indirectly lead to many of these pressures.

Many of the folks that are killing orangutans, destroying their habitat, are doing so to earn money necessary to pay school fees for their kids, buy medicines for their sick relatives, and things like that. They are making rational and understandable choices given their circumstances, choices that I suspect many of us would make were we in their shoes. Asking them to take on major sacrifices to protect these animals that provide no direct benefit to them is an unfair and unrealistic thing to ask. People who are going to incur more of the costs of protecting great apes should also receive tangible benefits.

Reducing the risk of spillback: Being aware of both airborne and soilborne pathogens

Mitani: I think everybody is aware of the fact that animals can transmit disease to us because of things like COVID-19. Swine flu, bird flu—there are all kinds of things that animals transmit to us. But it’s a two-way street. We can infect them, and we do. Researchers like us have killed the animals that we study. This is because their close relationship to us means that great apes can harbor many of the same pathogens that we do. This is going to become an even larger problem in the future. As we have said, the world is getting smaller, and humans are increasingly coming into contact with great apes.

Marshall: These great apes just don’t have the natural immunity to diseases we introduce to them. We have a recurrent history of people from certain parts of the world going to other parts of the world and bringing with them diseases against which local people have no immune defenses. Essentially, we are recapitulating colonial history in our interactions with these great apes.

Reconsidering the role of field research: Using technology to create opportunities to study apes while limiting carbon footprints, cutting the cost of field research and using technology to reduce the amount of fieldwork time

Marshall: Long-term research sites are really important refugia for apes, and I am quite sure that at several research sites, had the researchers and staff who work at the research stations not been on site, then those populations would have disappeared. Field researchers are conservationists and are having positive effects, but we unfortunately know that we can also have negative effects.

We are advocating that field researchers try to think about how we can keep as much of the good associated with our presence as possible and minimize the bad that goes along with it, and technology is the most obvious place to start. Various kinds of technologies have provided us with insights we wouldn’t have imagined possible a decade or two ago. We can’t learn all the things that we’re currently learning by direct observation through technology as it currently stands, but technology is improving very quickly. We wanted to raise people’s awareness to that and also encourage some of our colleagues to think about ways they could incorporate technology more to reduce risks to great apes.

Finding new forms of funding: Tourism, carbon payments and wildlife credits to support local communities in range countries, establishing great apes trust fund

Mitani: All of this is going to cost money. To address this issue, we recruited another colleague, Genevieve Campbell, a primatologist with the conservation nonprofit Re:wild, who has worked with banks and industries to try to find ways to mitigate or minimize the destructive activities they have on ape habitat.

Another problem is that you can throw money at issues, but most are temporary fixes. What Genevieve would like to do, and what both Andy and I support, is to develop a long-term, permanent funding stream. One way to do this is to establish a great ape trust fund that would provide support for great ape conservation in perpetuity.

Marshall: At the moment, most of the financial incentives are in the opposite direction. It’s not just that protecting apes requires money, it’s that there are strong financial incentives that are the root causes of many of the problems that are driving apes’ decline.

Marshall and Mitani’s co-authors include Ekwoge Abwe of the Cameroon Biodiversity Association and the San Diego Zoo Wildlife Alliance; Tamara Giles-Vernick of the Institut Pasteur/Université Paris Cité; Tony Goldberg of the University of Wisconsin; Signe Preuschoft of the Ape Protection Unit, Four Paws; and Jatna Supriatna of the University of Indonesia.