Neo-colonial science

Neo-colonial research or neo-colonial science,^[1][2] frequently described as helicopter research,^[1] parachute science^[3][4] or research,^[5] parasitic research,^[6][7] or safari study,^[8] is when researchers from wealthier countries go to a developing country, collect information, travel back to their country, analyze the data and samples, and publish the results with no or little involvement of local researchers. A 2003 study by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences found that 70% of articles in a random sample of publications about least-developed countries did not include a local research co-author.^[2]

Frequently, during this kind of research, the local colleagues might be used to provide logistics support as fixers but are not engaged for their expertise or given credit for their participation in the research. Scientific publications resulting from parachute science frequently only contribute to the career of the scientists from rich countries, thus limiting the development of local science capacity (such as funded research centers) and the careers of local scientists.^[1] This form of "colonial" science has reverberations of 19th century scientific practices of treating non-Western participants as "others" in order to advance colonialism—and critics call for the end of these extractivist practices in order to decolonize knowledge.^[9][10]

This kind of research approach reduces the quality of research because international researchers may not ask the right questions or draw connections to local issues.^[11] The result of this approach is that local communities are unable to leverage the research to their own advantage.^[4] Ultimately, especially for fields dealing with global issues like conservation biology which rely on local communities to implement solutions, neo-colonial science prevents institutionalization of the findings in local communities in order to address issues being studied by scientists.^[4][9]