by Rose and Losia
​
Originally published as an online "Behind the Paper" article at https://socialsciences.nature.com/users/177900-rose-o-dea/posts/39046-slow-and-steady-our-meta-analysis-on-greater-male-variability-in-academic-performance

The paper, authored by us (Rose and Losia) and our co-authors Michael and Shinichi, is freely available in Nature Communications: https://bit.ly/2N2ymie.

The seed for this paper was planted five years ago. Michael was sat at Losia and Shinichi’s kitchen table in Dunedin, New Zealand, listening to Shinichi describe a new meta-analysis technique he’d been developing. This technique could test for differences in variability between two groups, while controlling for differences in means. Michael suggested we use this technique to test the greater male variability hypothesis.
It would be easy. Losia found a recently published meta-analysis that tested for gender differences in average school grades; we’d do a re-analysis. It would be a simple project for Michael’s honours student, Rose, to learn some meta-analysis basics; she was joining Shinichi’s new lab in Sydney, Australia, at the beginning of 2015. The paper would be finished (we all thought) within a year, before Rose started a PhD. But it took that long just to get the data, never mind analysing and writing up our results.

The descriptive statistics of studies included in the original meta-analysis were not available. So, we downloaded the papers and re-extracted the necessary data, and contacted the authors of papers that hadn’t reported descriptive statistics. We also updated the original systematic search to find papers published since mid–2011. Losia and Rose each screened over 3,000 abstracts (thanks abstrackr), and by the start of 2016 we finally had our comprehensive dataset.

But by then, this was a side-project. Not part of anyone’s grant or thesis, it was often relegated to the bottom of our priority lists. Having each other as co-authors was essential: the project never fully stagnated because there was someone else to keep it moving. Had we been doing the project alone it would probably lay abandoned.
We were also challenged by our ignorance of the field – we are evolutionary biologists and behavioural ecologists, not social scientists or psychologists. It took time to find, and read, studies that informed our introduction and discussion. Often we were missing jargon that was the key to unlocking this information. Here we are thankful to popular science communicators for bridging these gaps (e.g. the term ‘occupational segregation’, which appears in our introduction, was learnt on an episode of Freakonomics Radio), and to psychologists who commented on earlier drafts.

by Dony Indiarto

Earlier this year, a team of researchers published a study on Indonesia’s Bajau people that made a highlight in evolutionary biology. Bajau people have been widely known as extraordinary divers. The study unveiled that these people have significantly bigger spleens compared to those live in the nearby farming communities. Bajau people spend most of their days freediving and hunting underwater for generations. The researchers also identified 25 distinctive genes that are plausibly associated with the sea gipsies’ unique lifestyle, as reported in Cell. No doubt, this research has revealed crucial evidence on human adaptation under extreme condition. Scientifically, there has been no flaw or concerns about the research and its findings. Nevertheless, the publication has been disconcerting for some Indonesian scientists, who revealed concerns over western scientists’ behaviours.

Helicopter science
The story above reflects a bigger social phenomenon, the so-called ‘helicopter science’, where foreign scientists come and collect data for a short period of time in a particular local area. They then go back home, analyse and write their research in their institution, often disconnected from the local contexts, from the local knowledge, and from those who have been focusing their research in longer term, often for their entire career. Two potential misses: (i) the research results might be biased due to small samples and also lack of local contexts; (ii) without true collaboration with local scientists, if any, long-term research for covering breadth and depth of exciting findings will not be feasible. The study may bring some progress to science, but by leaving behind the local researchers, the knowledge and capacity gaps among the scientific community will be widened, primarily due to lack of funding and resources to support scientific research in developing countries. The problem is magnified specifically for basic natural science that needs advanced technology and expensive lab works, such as in genetic studies.

This issue often happens in biodiversity-rich developing countries, where data are scarce and badly needed, but funding some particular research topics are not yet a priority. These countries are often alleged for enforcing complicated procedures and unclear regulation in facilitating and hosting foreign researchers and in permitting samples to be taken out of the country. While this is factual, it does not tell us the complete story. Cultural and language barrier can also create misunderstanding and unmet expectation between scientists. The front desk officers who implement the procedures are blind to the reason behind the regulation. Local counterparts are often employed as logistic support or leg workers and ended up having narrow space, if any, in participating in doing science. Not unlike Trump’s current policy for balanced trade, developing countries’ protection policy can retaliate back by imposing stricter regulations for research by foreign scientists. This is also similar to meta-analysis scientists who are called as “research parasites” by other scientists who collect primary data. As a result, this tit for tat will slow down new scientific discoveries in under-researched areas.
 
Call for inclusive science
“Helicopter science” is just one form of implicit biases and inequalities that do exist and persist in the scientific community. The wall between countries in doing science should be removed through collaboration driven by ethics.  The scientific partnership should be built on mutual respect and benefit. Of course, this is easier said than done. Scientists in developing countries are hindered by limited financial and institutional support, technical skills, as well as exposure to the advances in scientific discoveries. Practical or applied research is often more relevant for the locals than basic research, and therefore the collaboration in such areas will be truly fruitful.

On the other hand, local scientists should actively engage in reducing “helicopter science” practice by being pro-active. One good example is from African scientists who have taken a step forward by declaring the ethical handling of samples for genomic studies. Like everything else, the sociology of science will be rich and flourished when diversity is cherished.  In reaching so, collaborative research has to bring benefit to all parties.