Science Séance: CEO Testosterone; Predicting Extinction, Sharks Not Basking; Beach Speak

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Whereby we communicate with the spirits of science and attempt to discern the meaning of a few of the latest papers. In this issue: how to predict extinction in only eight generations; why soaring testosterone levels ground CEOs; what’s keeping basking sharks from rebounding; and who’s speaking for beaches.

  • On the road to extinction, dwindling populations pass a tipping point beyond which they may not be able to recover. The ability to anticipate this tipping point and to, theoretically, at least, take measures to avoid extinction remains elusive. Now a new paper in Nature argues the causes of a population’s decline are central to the predictability of its extinction. “Specifically, environmental degradation may cause a tipping point in population dynamics, corresponding to a bifurcation in the underlying population growth equations, beyond which decline to extinction is almost certain.” Working with lab populations of water fleas, the authors found four statistical indicators heralding extinction as early as 110 days (~8 generations) before the tipping point was passed. Critical to anticipating correctly: reliable baseline data from before environmental deterioration begins. Good reason to exponentially grow the funding for field work.
  • According to a new study in the September issue of Management Science, an Icarus effect, of sorts, is caused by the soaring testosterone levels of CEOs. Those suffering high testosterone levels during merger-and-acquisition negotiations drop more deals and also bulldoze their way into more hostile takeover attempts. “We find a strong association between male CEOs being young and their withdrawal rate of initiated mergers and acquisitions,” say the authors, who characterize rejectionist younger executives as victims of their own dominance-seeking behavior. “High testosterone responders tend to reject low offers even though this is against their interest.”
  • NOAA’s Fisheries Service has designated the eastern North Pacific basking shark a “species of concern,” since it continues to suffer a dramatic population decline despite decreasing fishing pressures. US and Canadian fishing programs ended in the 1970s, yet the population has not rebounded, probably because of low reproductive rates, vessel strikes, fisheries bycatch, and illegal shark finning. Whereas schools of thousands used to occur off California in the mid 20th century, no more than three individual basking sharks have been observed at any one time since 1993. More or less ditto for Canadian waters. The current eastern North Pacific population size is estimated at 300 to 500 animals. That means the current basking shark population in the northeast Pacific is roughly 10 percent of pre-hunting levels. A fate befalling so many of the big fish. (What would the model from the Nature study, above, show if we plugged the basking shark data into it?)
  • Four IPCC reports on global climate change mostly overlooked the impacts of a warming worldon marine ecosystems. That prompted a review in Science last June by noted marine researchers. And that led to a letter in the current Science arguing that beaches are getting even less of their due than other marine ecosystems. “Specifically, there areno studies of climate change impacts to sandy beach ecosystems.Rather than any oversight by… previousauthors, we believe that the omission of beaches from thisand other assessments of anthropogenic impacts reflects a relativelack of appreciation of beaches as ecosystems. This paucity of beach studies is alarming, not only becausebeaches comprise ~70% of open-ocean coasts and have high socioeconomicand ecosystem value, but also because their position at theland-sea margin renders them highly vulnerable to climate change… The inadequacy of information on ecological impacts of climatechange on this vulnerable and challenged coastal ecosystem mustbe addressed.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate