| |||||||||||||||||||
|  |
Advocacy in conservation scienceorganized by J. Michael Scott (University of Idaho), Janet Rachlow (University of Idaho), and Robert Lackey (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency)ADVOCACY IN SCIENCE: AN OVERVIEW OF THE ISSUE AND ITS CONTROVERSIES Jocelyn Aycrigg, Gabrielle Feldman, Robert Lackey, Anna Pidgorna, JANET RACHLOW, David Rupp, J. Michael Scott, David Stanish, and Leona Svancara, Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, University of Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA (JA, GF, AP, JR, DR, JMS, DS, LS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR, USA (RL), jrachlow@uidaho.edu Advocacy in science has been the focus of much debate in conservation biology and other natural resource disciplines. Advocacy in scientific research has been at the heart of discussions surrounding significant conservation issues. We provide a brief overview of the subject as a context for this symposium. Next, we present results of an evaluation of advocacy in the natural resource sciences based on a review of research papers from six natural resource journals (Conservation Biology, Ecological Applications, Forest Science, Journal of Range Management, Journal of Wildlife Management, and North American Journal of Fisheries Management). We evaluated papers for use of normative language and stipulation of policy or management preferences. We recorded evidence of advocacy in research papers in all six journals. On a per paragraph basis, 25–40% of paragraphs (including Abstract, Introduction, Discussion, and Conclusion sections) contained normative language, and 5–10% of paragraphs referenced stipulated policy or management preferences. Advocacy was more frequently expressed in the discussion and conclusions sections of research papers in all journals. Normative language was used most frequently in Conservation Biology. We discuss presentation of policy-relevant scientific data in formats that represent advocacy versus policy-neutral statements. USING RESEARCH TO DRIVE THE POLICY AGENDA: SCIENCE OR ADVOCACY? BOB PRESSEY, The Ecology Centre, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, QLD, Australia, r.pressey@uq.edu.au Advocacy is “an act of pleading for, supporting, or recommending; active espousal.“ Some important questions arise about the role of advocacy in conservation science, including the following three: (a) Is advocacy science? (b) Is advocacy democratic? (c) If no to one or both of the above, is advocacy bad? My perspective on this is colored by about eight years as a private environmental consultant, about 19 years as a government scientist, and now by the beginning of a career as an academic researcher with a strong interest in using conservation science to make a difference on the ground. I discuss four examples of how my colleagues and I have used science to advocate approaches to conservation decisions by government and non-government organizations and comment on the factors that helped or constrained us: (1) the disadvantages of residual conservation reserves, (2) applying systematic conservation planning to real decisions, (3) raising the bar on conservation targets; (4) the limitations of identifying priority regions for conservation. After these examples, I give some personal, and debatable, views on larger issues, including the limits of using science in advocacy, and the restricted advantages flowing to the technocratic elite and those with access to decision makers. VALUES ARE A GOOD THING IN CONSERVATION BIOLOGY REED NOSS, Department of Biology, University of Central Florida, Orlando, FL, USA, rnoss@mail.ucf.edu A contested issue in conservation biology is to what degree scientists should be advocates of particular points of view in public policy debates. Opinions about what constitute legitimate science and proper behavior of scientists are evolving toward a more contextual point of view. Values enter into all stages of the scientific process, from defining the problem to stating hypotheses, choosing methods, and interpreting results. The entire field of conservation biology rests on the value assumption that biodiversity is good and should be conserved. Moreover, conservation biology follows the normative values of science, which include truth, accuracy, predictive power, and scope. I argue that the dichotomy of scientific rigor vs. advocacy is false. A conservation biologist can be an objective scientist and an advocate for the diversity of life at the same time, with no contradiction. The challenge for conservation biologists is to be honest and responsible advocates. Honest scientists approach problems with open minds, willing to throw away cherished assumptions and pre-conceived notions if they prove untenable. The way to win respect and influence for science in society is to boldly proclaim its most compelling values: commitment to truth, rationality, full consideration of evidence, self-correction, openness, and honest discourse. ROLE OF ADVOCACY IN COMMUNICATION OF SCIENCE AND EFFECTING CHANGE GRETCHEN DAILY, Department of Biological Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA, gdaily@stanford.edu I will use The Natural Capital Project as the point of entry into the complex of issues surrounding advocacy and science. Led by The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, and Stanford University, The Natural Capital Project aims to make conservation mainstream, economically attractive and commonplace throughout the world. Attempting to achieve this, we are creating new approaches that (a) explicitly link conservation and human well-being, (b) use innovative conservation finance mechanisms and supporting institutions, and (c) engage leaders from diverse backgrounds, from landowners, legal scholars, and finance experts to hydrological engineers, public officials and, not least, students in conservation biology. This problem-solving effort is explicitly value-laden, and its long-term success hinges critically on excellence in conducting and communicating the science. I will describe the process by which the scientists involved are communicating both scientific findings and personal opinion and values. DEFINING APPROPRIATE ROLES FOR SCIENCE AND SCIENTISTS IN DEVELOPING, ANALYZING, AND IMPLEMENTING PUBLIC POLICY ROBERT LACKEY and Joshua Lawler, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR, USA, lackey.robert@epa.gov Resolving typical ecological policy issues requires an array of scientific information as part of the input provided to decision-makers. The ability of scientists (and scientific information) to constructively inform policy deliberations diminishes when what is offered as “science“ is inculcated with personal policy preferences. The scientific enterprise is not free of values, nor is it objectively independent. By definition, scientific information is “normative“ when it contains implicit policy preferences and thus, by extension, promotes or at least tends to favor particular policy options. Normative science may corrupt deliberative process for developing sound ecological policy because it can be a tool for policy advocacy that operates under the guise of policy-neutral science. With its implicitly derived value and preference character, normative science provides little substantive help in reconciling the most divisive elements of ecological, natural resource, and environmental policy. My recommendation is for scientists to play the important role of informing (by providing policy-neutral scientific information) ecological policy discussions, but the role should be carefully circumscribed and understood by all involved parties. Scientific information is important, even essential, for developing wise ecological policies, but scientists should be vigilant to letting personal policy preferences infect their scientific input. CONSERVATION BIOLOGY AND FOUR TYPES OF ADVOCACY PETER BRUSSARD, University of Nevada, Reno, NV, USA, brussard@biodiversity.unr.edu Conservation biologists must be involved in four types of advocacy. The first is professional advocacy—informing policy makers, managers, and the public about issues arising in your own area of expertise. The old analogy of an engineer who sees that a bridge under construction is so badly designed that it is sure to fail under a full traffic load but keeps her mouth shut is applicable here. In my opinion the engineer is guilty of gross—if not criminal—negligence, and I submit that a conservation biologist whose research shows, for example, that current management practices will lead to the extinction of a species is similarly guilty. The important caveat is to distinguish very clearly among what you know for sure (the known population is down to a few individuals), what you think you know (the population will very likely go extinct), and your opinion (the development has to stop). The second is advocacy about science in general and how it differs from faith-based ways of knowing. We all need to be comfortable talking about how science works, how it is self-correcting, its lack of certainty, and the differences between hypotheses and theories. Third, we need to be advocates about the role of ecological services in human welfare. For example, anyone who has taken a basic ecology or environmental science course knows how flood plains work and how they decrease the impacts of floods. Yet most of us stand by passively as government agencies continue to permit building on flood plains and promote channelization and concrete as the only sensible flood control measures. Finally, we all need to be advocates for natural history, particularly with children. If we don’t expose kids and their parents to nature and its beauties (and even to its indifference), we will lose our clientele to x-boxes and game boys within a generation. SCIENTISTS WORKING WITH PRIVATE LAND OWNERS AS PART OF THE HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANNING PROCESS BARRY NOON, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA, brnoon@cnr.colostate.edu JOURNAL EDITORS' ROUND-TABLE DISCUSSION Tim Beardsley, Editor, Bioscience and Gary Meffe, Editor, Conservation Biology SCIENCE AND ADVOCACY IN THE U.S. FOREST SERVICE ANN BARTUSKA, USDA Forest Service, Washington, D.C., USA, abartuska@fs.fed.us The USDA Forest Service faces new and shifting challenges resulting from economic and social changes of the last several decades. In particular, the decline in traditional timber harvest has made it necessary to carefully identify the “desired future condition“ of the Nation’s forests in light of social, economic, and biological considerations. Research and management strategies can help to achieve or maintain such conditions. Science can be used to elucidate the processes that will produce or threaten the desired future condition, but cannot define it. Science can be integrated into management to help address the many challenges to maintaining healthy ecosystems across broad landscapes. Incorporation of experimental design into management application is a practical and efficient method of producing large-scale experiments. However, science informs but does not make management decisions. Changes to ecosystems may be incremental (e.g., increase in fire condition through time) or abrupt (e.g., sudden increase in an aggressive invasive species); each type offers different challenges to scientists. It may be especially difficult to avoid crossing the line between informing and advocacy when science users are developing regulations, making decisions that have wide-ranging secondary effects, or facing high rates of actual or potential ecosystem modification. COMMUNICATING RESULTS SCIENCE TO SOCIETY SUSAN HASELTINE, U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, USA, susan_haseltine@usgs.gov Much discussion has focused on the role of science and scientists in informing, influencing, and evaluating the impact of policy on issues of long-term importance to the economy, human health, national security, and the health of the ecological systems that sustain our life. In my presentation I will provide examples of how this was done effectively and others that left room for improvement. There are several actions that scientists must accomplish to effectively communicate the results of our work to society. First, all stake holders should be informed of scientific results, regardless of their policy position. Second, the full record of relevant science needs to be brought to policy makers, and the strengths and uncertainties described clearly. Third, results of scientific work should be conveyed in formats that are value-free and non-prescriptive regarding policy options. In closing, I will describe the policy review process for the U.S. Geological Survey, its purpose, and how issues of science advocacy are addressed. WHEN LIFE ITSELF HANGS IN THE BALANCE: THE TUG-OF-WAR BETWEEN SCIENCE AND ADVOCACY WITHIN THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE DANIEL ASHE, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., USA, Dan_Ashe@fws.gov Advocacy is “the act of pleading for or supporting.“ The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service mission—working with others to conserve, protect and enhance fish, wildlife, and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of Americans—belies the organization’s view of itself as an advocate. The women and men who chose to work for the organization do so because they see the opportunity to make a difference. Simultaneously, it is a science organization, and its ability to be an effective advocate is grounded in its scientific credibility. Historically, a culture of commitment to science tempers the bias inherent in our passion for what we collectively term “the resource.“ We believe resource conservation must be guided by Aldo Leopold’s stricture of when a thing is right, but we are indebted to building scientific proof to support our actions. It is increasing vital that the organization, its political stewards, and its partners and constituents, recognize, honor and strengthen this professional tradition of balance between scientific integrity and resource advocacy. | |||||||||||||||||
|
|
| Copyright © 2012 Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) Direct questions, comments, and technical problems to the webmaster SCB is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization |