Remote‐Control Science in Ecology: A Hidden Face of Scientific Neocolonialism

While parachute and helicopter science have been condemned for marginalizing researchers from the Global South, we argue that a new practice, which we call “remote‐control science”, is becoming increasingly common. In this model, researchers frequently based in the Global North retain decision‐making power over questions, methods, funding, and publications without being physically present in the study sites. Local collaborators, despite leading fieldwork, are often relegated to marginal roles with limited resources and authorship recognition. Remote‐control science is especially evident in large‐scale and macroecological studies, where global datasets are rapidly assembled while local knowledge and validation are overlooked. These dynamics are not limited to North–South relations: they also occur within and between countries, when well‐funded scientific urban institutions overshadow peripheral ones. We identify the risks of this practice and propose actions to promote more equitable collaborations: early involvement, recognition of local knowledge, fair authorship, capacity building, and improved funding. Confronting remote‐control science is essential for decolonizing ecology.