Where Is Ethology Heading? An Invitation for Collective Metadisciplinary Discussion

SIMPLE SUMMARY: I analyzed the current state of Ethology (i.e., the study of animal behavior and cognition) from the researchers’ perspective through an online questionnaire that was responded to by almost a hundred participants. Despite that the number of the respondents was small, it is interesting to highlight some of the results, since they align with some published analyses. First, not many basic concepts of the discipline, nor its denomination, reached homogeneous consensus. This is alarming because researchers need common vocabulary to communicate effectively between them. Second, despite the enormous biodiversity existent, the researchers seem to be biased towards studying primates, our own family species. Also, the apparatuses employed in the studies are not always adapted to the species’ specific characteristics, so our conclusions about their behavior or cognition might be biased. Fortunately, the technology needed to conduct further studies already exists. However, there is not enough funding or collaboration with engineers to make it real. Establishing big scale networking, adopting some research principles such as transparency, and broadening gender and ethnic diversity in research teams may help in adopting new endeavors. ABSTRACT: Many factors can impact the advancement of scientific disciplines. In the study of animal behavior and cognition (i.e., Ethology), a lack of consensus about definitions or the emergence of some current events and inventions, among other aspects, may challenge the discipline’s grounds within the next decades. A collective metadisciplinary discussion may help in envisioning the future to come. For that purpose, I elaborated an online questionnaire about the level of consensus and the researchers’ ways of doing in seven areas: Discipline name and concepts, species, Umwelt, technology, data, networking, and the impact of sociocultural and ecological factors. I recruited the opinion of almost a hundred of colleagues worldwide (N = 98), both junior and seniors, working both in the wild and in the lab. While the results were pitted against the literature, general conclusions should be taken with caution and considered as a first attempt in exploring the state of the discipline from the researchers’ perspective: There is no unanimity for the discipline’s name; 71.4% of the researchers reported there is limited consensus in the definition of relevant concepts (i.e., culture, cognition); primate species still predominate in publications whereas the species selection criteria is sometimes based on fascination, chance, or funding opportunities rather than on biocentric questions; 56.1% of the apparatuses employed do not resemble species’ ecological problems, and current tech needs would be solved by fostering collaboration with engineers. Finally, embracing the Open Science paradigm, supporting networking efforts, and promoting diversity in research teams may help in gathering further knowledge in the area. Some suggestions are proposed to overcome the aforementioned problems in this contemporary analysis of our discipline.