Australia's animal research: the good, the bad and the ugly animals

Ever heard of this rat? Neither have most Australians. But rodents and bats made up nearly half of the 331 species examined in a new meta-study on how animal research is done Down Under. The problem: Rats are "ugly." Not much time and effort is spent studying these native rodents, like the endangered Bramble Cay melomys, which lives on a single, tiny island.

The ghost bat is another under-researched Australian native. It has eerily thin wing membranes, white or pale fur, and the lack of a tail. Its genetics, however, remain a mystery. The recent disappearance of the species in known habitats has also been left unexplained, though some suspect climate change as the cause. In general, "ugly" bats are not a popular area of research in Australia.

Under the "bad" category is Europe's red fox, which was brought to Australia in the 1800s. Together with the feral cat, the invasive animal has permanently killed off 25 mammal species and subspecies. It also costs the government 270 million Australian dollars (182 million euros) per year...

...which is why most Australian studies of foxes and feral cats (pictured above) are about where these animals live, how they reproduce and - often - the best way to kill them or limit their impact. Such research is "valuable" because it can potentially save the country millions. Primary research on the animals for the sake of pure science, however, is relatively rare.

They're cute, and bad. They cost a lot of money: A$ 70 million per year. They're accused of ruining trees by "ringbarking," (eating the bark) and stealing food from farm animals. Scientists have documented their ecology and breeding Habits, but it's a mix of scientific research and agricultural politics. The native possum is similarly considered a pest for climbing and eating the leaves of trees.

Another European import is the house mouse. "Eruptions" of these animals tend to follow a drought. The hordes of mice then endanger local animals - especially true on the country's ecologically sensitive 8,000 islands. Today, in northern Australia, animals introduced to the continent have more biomass than the native ones do.

And finally the "good" animals: they're the ones trotted out when a politician of note pays a visit. Koalas, for example, have been studied all the way down to their DNA. Australian researchers have detailed their gut and intestinal microbes, have found they can only tolerate so many human interactions per day and have discovered why they hug trees. All good things, right?

The problem is marsupials are studied disproportionately. Of the 14,000 research publications analyzed in the meta-study, a whopping 10,000 were devoted to marsupials, such as wallabys (above), koalas, kangaroos and wombats. And that, say the authors of "The good, the bad, and the ugly: which Australian terrestrial mammal species attract most research," is evidence of bias.