The study was about how government funding affects endangered animals. It found that a species success rate is dependant upon the funding in which it receives.
In other words, an endangered animal which has better funding put into it, in order to preserve them, are more likely to survive than species who have less funding.
Saving species is important for the earths biodiversity, and, it is also important in halting Climate Change. But, that doesn't just mean saving species of animals which are attractive to us, it also means saving animals which we find 'ugly'.
Ugly animals when they are endangered do not get the publicity that cuter animals, such as Tigers or Polar Bears get. Ugly animals are also being ignored by scientists and conservationists.
The study also found that this can be harmful for species, specifically the species which are not receiving the funding. They found that species who received higher funding, recovered more than species who did not receive the same amount of funding.
It opens up a wider debate about wildlife conservation. A debate being, are we saving species because it's the morally right thing to do. Or, are we saving species because they appeal to us.