Parallels between biological invasions and human migration are flawed and undermine both disciplines. Response to Ahmed et al.

作者：Josie South, Roxana Barbulescu, Rafael L. Macêdo, Camille Musseau, Simone Guareschi, Tim Alamenciak, Gabriella Alberti, Sylvie Allen, Sven Bacher, Emma Baker, Michaela Benson, Maud Bernard‐Verdier, Rashida Bibi, Manuela Boatcă, Rossano Bolpagni, Timothy R. Brown, Bridget Byrne, Susan Canavan, E. Castro, Deirdre Conlon, Jean-Paul Demoule, Alison M. Dunn, Thomas Faist, Glenda Garelli, Paula Gervazoni, Ben Gidley, Jérôme M. W. Gippet, Matthew Harwood, Tina Heger, Theresa Henke, Sara Hill, Joshua Hobbs, James Hodson, George Holmes, Philip E. Hulme, Hannah E. Jones, Dumisani Khosa, Majella Kilkey, Danai Kontou, Anne Lavanchy, Hannah Lewis, Rosa Mas Giralt, Laura A. Meyerson, Ana Novoa, Zarah Pattison, Pavel Pipek, Anna F. Probert, Petr Pyšek, Anthony Ricciardi, Jonathan David Roberts, Florian Ruland, Wolf‐Christian Saul, Ross T. Shackleton, Nando Sigona, Daniel Simberloff, John Solomos, Li Sun, Louise Waite, Pip Wilson, Florencia A. Yannelli, Zana Vathi, Tesfalem Yemane, Ulrike M. Vieten, Giovanni Vimercati, Elena Zambelli, Deah Lieurance · 发表于：BioScience · 年份：2025 · DOI：10.1093/biosci/biaf073 · 被引用次数：3 · 研究领域：Isotope Analysis in Ecology、Wildlife Ecology and Conservation、Pacific and Southeast Asian Studies

A recent article by Ahmed and colleagues (2025) attempt to draw parallels and assess distinctions between biological invasions and human migration. This comparison conflates two globally occurring phenomena in a scientifically flawed way and risks the misappropriation of scientific concepts for ideological and political agendas. The repeated use of similarity and parallels throughout the text, including in the title, could easily lead to misconceptions among broader audiences, such as educators and policymakers, who can help shape public discourse. Despite their acknowledgement that comparing introductions of nonnative species with human migration “may be inappropriate and cause confusion,” Ahmed and colleagues argue that it reveals “complex parallels that are potentially fruitful to explore.” However, they fail to make their case. Although interdisciplinary analogies can sometimes yield fresh insights, applying concepts of biological invasions to human migration is both conceptually flawed and ethically problematic. Invasion science examines ecological processes and the subsequent environmental, economic, and public health impacts. In contrast, migration studies explore the drivers of human movement and their effects on individuals, communities, and countries, emphasizing that human migration—unlike biological invasions—is a single-species phenomenon in which individuals are not passive agents. Although external forces such as war or famine can drive their movement, humans a...