What are some disciplines that National Geographic Society really needs people in and wants to fund badly?

Hard to say-- here in the USA, for instance, a lot of our conservation & conservation research funding comes from the hunting permits and hunter groups. Depending on the context, hunters can be a really good contingent for sustainable wildlife management- because it's in their best interest to keep wildlife around. (I'm saying all of this as a vegetarian/pescatarian, by the way). It also depends on who is making the decision - are there people who rely on hunting for sustenance or to help their families get by? How are they being involved? A great example of what *not* to do is in all of the dialogue right now about trophy hunting in Africa- a very polarized issue, but most of the anti-trophy hunting folks are actually not Africans at all and are from the Global North. They should not have any decision making power over what goes on elsewhere.

In short, to answer your Q such a decision would need to be very deeply community-involved and science-informed.

What are some of your most memorable wildlife encounters? And What are the closest relatives to hyenas that are alive today ?

Fluticastone propionate (Flonase) has low systemic bioavailability when administered as a nasal spray.

I don’t doubt you’re right about the nasal side effects of overuse, but I doubt anyone has gotten adrenal insufficiency from Flonase.

[removed]

[removed]

There are so many extinct carnivores in the US. Is there any chance of recreating the California Golden Bear and other species? Is there one extinct species that is most promising?

Was the depiction of hyenas in the novel Jurassic Park The Lost World accurate?

I'm willing to bet that social media has a lot to do with what we're seeing, and that most of these behaviors are not new. That being said, human changes to the environment (even subtle changes) can create new situations that animals have to adapt to or may behave differently around.

On a more philosophical note, scientists/people in general often try to put things into neat boxes, and nature doesn't operate like that! Folks might think behaviors are new just because scientists of the past have not written about them due to the behaviors not fitting into our neat boxes. A great example: all of the homosexual and gender-bending behaviors in the animal kingdom that have been poorly studied or largely just ignored or written off as flukes.

>Flonase can lead to a condition called rhinitis medicamentosa, or rebound congestion.

It varies from person to person of course, and how well their body is able to handle the drug metabolism.

For childeren, prolonged intake of 100 to 200 ug daily may indeed increase the risk, while for adults the dosis might be up to 500 ug.

Of course people with already existing adrenal gland problems would handle it worse compared to normal people and they would see the side effects much faster.

[removed]

I haven't heard of nor can I endorse incorporating oneself into a hyena clan, but I do think that there's evidence social animals (particularly social mammals) are more amenable to forming some type of connection with humans. We, also as social mammals, have brains that work similarly to other social mammals- could be a factor.

As far as body language- some researchers study this for entire careers depending on the study species. I mean, take a look at what Dr. Tom Seeley did with decoding honeybee body language and social behavior- absolutely amazing!

Ooooh I have no idea. But I imagine you would have to define what you mean by "strength" first. Are we talking bite force? Pulling/dragging ability? Straight up muscle mass?

The most intimidatingly muscular animal that I frequently come into contact with is the cape buffalo. Seen death closing in a few too many times with those guys nearby.

The total daily dose recommended on the package insert is 200 micrograms. Is this really enough to cause adrenal suppression?

Great question, and as with anything related to wildlife and conservation- nuanced answer..! Mainly, the answer is "it depends". It depends on the species' adaptive capacity and behavioral flexibility, their diet needs, and their space/habitat needs, as well as human-determined factors such as green space availability and habitat, attitudes and actions toward certain species, etc. Behaviorally flexible species such as coyotes, raccoons, and spotted hyenas (to name a few) can survive in urban and peri-urban areas because of their flexibility not just of behavior but of diet. A great article just came out in The Atlantic talk about diet flexibility in relation to anthropogenic food sources: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2023/02/wild-animals-eating-human-food-health-issues/673138/.

That being said, as you can imagine cities are not amenable to every species. And just because some animals are able to make it work in an urbanized area doesn't necessarily mean that they're thriving. For instance many scientists are asking questions about the stress hormones and disease susceptibility of urban wildlife (within cities and across different cities), to try and understand exactly what they're experiencing and how they're coping.

[removed]

Have you heard of NatGeos involvement with the Into The Okavango project? Thoughts?

Also, so cool to have you here. I studied conservation ecology and masters in environmental law. Dream was to study big cats one day but it hasn't become a reality yet, although I've been part of the release of two rehabilitated cheetahs! (More just a friendly bystander)

Yes indeed! I have served as a reviewer for the Nat Geo Level 1s twice now.

1. Make sure that the project focus that you are applying for is accurate. For instance, don't put your project under "conservation" unless you are planning to measure and evaluate specific conservation metrics as part of your project. In other words, a lot of projects span both research and conservation, but if we aren't measuring impact, then those are under the "research" focus.

2. Make sure that you do your due diligence about the need and broader impacts of the project. NatGeo likes to fund projects that will make a meaningful impact of some kind.

3. Make sure you are meaningfully involving local scientists/communities in the work that you are doing. It's easy to tell when someone isn't doing this at all, or is being surface-level about it.

These are great Qs! And quite frankly, I am still in the doorway (really just a toe over the threshold maybe) of the entrance to wide-scale scientific communication. We'll see what happens. But I've basically been just putting myself out there as much as possible, and talking about the science that I'm passionate about in as many formats as possible (social media, speaking gigs, productions). Over time, people start to recognize that you're good at what you do (well, I try to be, anyway - at least I'm enthusiastic??), and they start knocking on your door more. I don't really know what other concrete advice to give except to not be afraid to cold-email people and put yourself out there as much as possible toward the goal that you have. The worst people can say is "no".

I do agree that we have a problem with scientists and science communicators being paid very poorly or not paid at all. We need to draw our boundaries. I try really hard not to accept any unpaid speaking gigs unless 1) I know the person, 2) the speaking gig will be serving underrepresented groups and/or for another good cause. I'll do those for free no problem. Hopefully we can move the needle by drawing these types of boundaries.

depends how sick the shark is ;)

In my country there are people advocating for complete ban on hunting. Would that be a good idea? The climate here and situation with wildlife, I'd say, is similar to Canada.

This is a fantastic and very complicated/nuanced question. You've touched on the fact that conservation, in the end, is a value judgement - based in what people want to prioritize. As far as coyotes, I think we still have a ways to go as far as assessing whether they are negatively impacting listed species in their new eastern ranges (as compared to the impacts of other non-native species like outdoor domestic cats). The other challenge with an animal like the coyote is that the slim evidence we have shows that lethal control (if a wildlife manager was into trying that) wouldn't work, and their populations would quickly rebound. Thus, I imagine this will have to be a very context-specific answer, where we create solutions on an individual-species basis for our endangered and threatened species, while simultaneously increasing our empirical understanding of whether and how expanding mesocarnivore populations are impacting species of interest. Not a satisfying or clear cut answer, I'm afraid, but nothing in conservation ever is!

[removed]

Oooh I love this question, what a tough one. I think one of my favorite tools to use is incorporating an analogy or some sort of "social math" into science communication. For social math, for example, when we talk about fence ecology we could say something like "the length of fences wrapped around the earth could likely reach the sun". That loops people into the scientific material through a topic/distance/measurement that they can understand and relate to.

I think that Seeker (https://www.seeker.com/) also does a great job at communicating all of that great micro-science stuff - though they use a lot of fancy animations and camera work which might not be logistically feasible.

The advice, in short, is to connect your science back to the average person. Why might it matter to them? What aspect of a person's daily life does the science connect to? It's a good series of questions to ask yourself when seeking funding too - I think my explorations with SciComm have improved my grant writing ability to a great extent.

If a theory predicts something and we don't see it in an experiment, then it was a wrong prediction, or a wrong theory.