I’ve always adore the writings of E.O. Wilson, whose love affair with nature and biology envelope his poetic non-fiction work with an adoration and passion for science, and I was excited to read his wonderful recent book “Letters to a Young Scientist.” Even though, I am no longer able to call myself a young scientist, I was nevertheless curious to see what advice he gives to the next generation of scientists, and replenish my soul with some of his personal wisdom and advice. E.O. Wilson found his passion of natural history with his study of ants, one of the smallest of creatures, and a group that nevertheless is often neglected, stepped over, and ignored. Hence, one of E.O. Wilson’s pieces of wisdom to young scientists is to study some neglected or understudied portion of science, and then later apply this narrow specialty to a broad range of “big picture” scientific theories and hypotheses.

It was advice that I had been given and which started my obscure path toward becoming a paleontologist. While I was still an undergraduate, I became interested in a very obscure group of fossil mammals collectively called Hyopsodontidae. These small guinea-pig size mammals were very abundant during the Eocene of North America, with thousands of fossils collected across Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, but they are also found in Asia, such as the Eocene of Mongolia, and even in Europe, such as in England and in the Paris Basin. The genus Hyopsodus enjoyed a very wide distribution, but eventually went extinct before the end of the Eocene Epoch. The group was placed within an archaic grouping called the Condylarthra, but had some features and characters that likely allied them with the Order Perissodactyla (horses, rhinos, and tapirs), although more closely resembled small guinea-pig rodents with their small hunched backed rumps, lack of a long tail, and with little hooved-like toenails, and tube-like body. The group is the quintessential example of a boring neglected group. Extinct, small, abundant and just about ignored in the scientific literature, and hence I was deeply, almost fanatically drawn to the group. It formed my Masters thesis, and a number of years of active research.

In sum, I did as E.O. Wilson suggested, I threw myself into studying these neglected fossils, with the hopes that it would lead to broader questions, particularly about speciation, and evolution over long periods of times. It was lots of fun to be able to work on such a neglected family of creatures, and it occupied much of my life. However, as now that I am an older, I wonder if it was such a good idea to work on such an obscure group, and if my career would have been better served if I can studied a more famous or well-known group of fossils. As I marched onward with my career, I saw numerous paleontologists get passed over, simply because the group they studied was too obscure. The best jobs went to those young scientists who studied organisms that had the widest amount of fame, particularly dinosaurs and early human fossils. High-impacted journals focused on fossil groups with the most celebrity. As grant funds became more competitive, the more visible fossil groups garnished the most funds. Funding bodies worried that the study of obscure groups could be scorned politically as a waste of tax payer money.

The young scientist who studies within an obscure scientific field is likely to be destined to obscurity them self, especially given the competitive nature of scientific job opportunities today.

But why then did E.O. Wilson give this advice to young scientists?

I think that as scientists we value knowledge, any knowledge that furthers a particular field of science is seen with greater esteem and respect. The study of an obscure group or field of science leads to a greater gain of knowledge, whereas the study of some hot-topic, will likely contribute only a smaller faction of knowledge, and will likely be drowned out by the cacophony of differing scientific voices.

Thus, as scientists we value the total amount of knowledge gained, rather than the popularity of the subject or topic. However, in today’s extremely completive field of science, few individuals can sacrifice their careers to study something obscure or neglected by the majority of science. I think this is to the detriment of all science in general, that we collectively value only those topics that garnish the greatest amount of public interest.
If I were to give advice to a young scientist, I would suggest they focus on a topic that draws a fair amount of public interest, and in a field where there is an active body of ongoing research. You are more likely to get funded and get a job once you are finished with your education. Only after you become established in your career do you have the luxury to study that obscure field of science that you always wanted to.