Values, credibility, and ethics: public advocacy and conservation science
Harry F. Recher
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
School of Natural Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Joondalup, WA 6027, Australia and Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia and Australian Museum Research Institute, Australian Museum, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia. Email: hfrecher@gmail.com
Pacific Conservation Biology 25(1) 22-25 https://doi.org/10.1071/PC17025
Submitted: 31 July 2017 Accepted: 9 October 2017 Published: 19 December 2017
Abstract
While it is important for conservation scientists to advise government on policy, they need to do more than give advice. Conservation scientists need to be public advocates for the creation of economies that are ecologically sustainable. To achieve sustainability conservation scientists must assume a role of leadership in the development and application of global environmental policies. Not all scientists agree with advocacy, but advocacy for conservation of the natural world means creating an ethical world, a world where all generations and people as well as all other species can share the Earth’s resources. At present that world does not exist and conservation scientists need to take a more active role in its creation.
Additional keywords: advocacy, biodiversity conservation, communication, ethics, policy, science education, social responsibility
References
Abbott, I., and Christensen, P. (1996). Objective knowledge, ideology and the forests of Western Australia. Australian Forestry 59, 206–212.| Objective knowledge, ideology and the forests of Western Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Bennett, B. A., and Attwood, C. G. (1993). Shore-angling catches in the De Hoop Nature Reserve, South Africa, and further evidence for the protective value of marine reserves. South African Journal of Marine Science 13, 213–222.
| Shore-angling catches in the De Hoop Nature Reserve, South Africa, and further evidence for the protective value of marine reserves.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Boon, P. (2018). Nature conservation in a brave new (post-truth) world: the necessity for public advocacy by conservation biologists. Pacific Conservation Biology , .
| Nature conservation in a brave new (post-truth) world: the necessity for public advocacy by conservation biologists.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Calver, M. C., Dickman, C. R., Feller, M. C., Hobbs, R. J., Horwitz, P., Recher, H. F., and Wardell-Johnson, G. (1998). Towards resolving conflict between forestry and conservation in Western Australia. Australian Forestry 61, 258–266.
| Towards resolving conflict between forestry and conservation in Western Australia.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Ceccarelli, D. M. (2011). The value of oceanic marine reserves for protecting highly mobile pelagic species: Coral Sea case study. Report prepared for the Protect Our Coral Sea Campaign. Available at: http://www.saveourmarinelife.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/the_value_of_oceanic_marine_reserves_for_protecting_highly_mobile.pdf [accessed 15 July 2017].
Commonwealth of Australia (2003). The benefits of Marine Protected Areas. Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra.
Edwards, T. (2013). Climate scientists must not advocate particular policies. The Guardian 31 July 2013. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2013/jul/31/climate-scientists-policies) [accessed 8 July 2017].
Ehrlich, A. H. (1993a). Global co-operation and ecosystem restoration. In ‘Nature Conservation 3: The Reconstruction of Fragmented Ecosystems’. (Eds D. A. Saunders, R. J. Hobbs, and P. R. Ehrlich.) pp. 17–25. (Surrey Beatty: Sydney.)
Ehrlich, P. R. (1993b). Communication: how can ecologists get their message out? In ‘Nature Conservation 3: The Reconstruction of Fragmented Ecosystems’. (Eds D. A. Saunders, R. J. Hobbs, and P. R. Ehrlich.) pp. 295–301. (Surrey Beatty: Sydney.)
Johnston, E. (2016). We need more scientists to take the leap into politics. Sydney Morning Herald 18 October 2016. Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/we-need-more-scientists-to-take-the-leap-into-politics-20161017-gs3u5z.html [accessed 18 October 2016.]
Kotcher, J. E., Myers, T. A., Vraga, E. K., Stenhouse, N., and Maibach, E. W. (2017). Does engagement in advocacy hurt the credibility of scientists? Results from a randomized national survey experiment. Environmental Communication 11, 415–429.
| Does engagement in advocacy hurt the credibility of scientists? Results from a randomized national survey experiment.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lackey, R. T. (2007). Science, scientists, and policy advocacy. Conservation Biology 21, 12–17.
| Science, scientists, and policy advocacy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Levins, R., and Lewontin, R. (1985). ‘The Dialectical Biologist.’ (Harvard University Press: Cambridge, MA.)
Mills, T. J. (2000). Position advocacy by scientists risks science credibility and may be unethical. Northwest Science 74, 165–168.
Mills, T. J., and Clark, R. N. (2001). Roles of research scientists in natural resource decision-making. Forest Ecology and Management 153, 189–198.
| Roles of research scientists in natural resource decision-making.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Nelson, M. P., and Vucetich, J. A. (2009). On advocacy by environmental scientists: what, whether, why, and how. Conservation Biology 23, 1090–1101.
| On advocacy by environmental scientists: what, whether, why, and how.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Pielke, R. A. (2006). When scientists politicize science. Regulation 29, 28–34. Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=898204
Pyke, G. H. (2017). Sustainability for humanity: it’s time to preach beyond the converted. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 32, 391–394.
| Sustainability for humanity: it’s time to preach beyond the converted.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Recher, H. F. (1990). Ecology, politics and the environment: why I stood for the Senate. Ecological Society of Australia Bulletin 20, 2–4.
Recher, H. F. (1992). Simple journalists or simple scientists?: Are environmental issues too complex for the media? Australian Zoologist 28, 19–23.
| Simple journalists or simple scientists?: Are environmental issues too complex for the media?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Recher, H. F. (1994). Science and conservation: towards alternative strategies for protecting Australia’s biological resources. Australian Zoologist 29, 148–156.
| Science and conservation: towards alternative strategies for protecting Australia’s biological resources.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Recher, H. F. (1996). The role of conservation biology in the new millennium. Pacific Conservation Biology 2, 311.
| The role of conservation biology in the new millennium.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Recher, H. F. (1998a). Public and political: the challenge for ecologists. In ‘Ecology for Everyone: Communicating Ecology to Scientists, the Public and the Politicians’. (Eds R. Wills and R. Hobbs.) pp. 9–15. (Surrey Beatty: Sydney.)
Recher, H. F. (1998b). Australian elections, wilderness and the lost billions. Pacific Conservation Biology 4, 177–178.
| Australian elections, wilderness and the lost billions.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Recher, H. F. (2012). Climate change and the social responsibility of scientists: a reaction to Lunney and Hutchings. In ‘Wildlife and Climate Changes: Towards Robust Conservation Strategies for Australian Fauna’. (Eds D. Lunney and P. Hutchings.) pp. 202–207. (Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales: Sydney.)
Recher, H. F. (2013). What makes this old scientist grumpy. In ‘Grumpy Scientists: the Ecological Conscience of a Nation’. (Eds D. Lunney, P. Hutchings, and H. F. Recher.) pp. 1–8. (Royal Zoological Society of New South Wales: Sydney.)
Recher, H. F. (2015). Failure of science, death of nature. Pacific Conservation Biology 21, 2–14.
| Failure of science, death of nature.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Recher, H. F., and Ehrlich, P. R. (1999). The essence of science: the social responsibility of communicating. Pacific Conservation Biology 5, 161–162.
| The essence of science: the social responsibility of communicating.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Sala, E., Costello, C., Dougherty, D., Heal, G., Kelleher, K., Murray, J. H., Rosenberg, A. A., and Sumaila, R. (2013). A general business model for marine reserves. PLoS One 8, e58799.
| A general business model for marine reserves.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BC3sXmtFWrt7c%3D&md5=21ac882216b362688d0b1f33196b81efCAS |
Saunders, D. A., Hobbs, R. J., and Ehrlich, P. R. (1993). Reconstruction of fragmented ecosystems: problems and possibilities. In ‘Nature Conservation 3: The Reconstruction of Fragmented Ecosystems’. (Eds D. A. Saunders, R. J. Hobbs, and P. R. Ehrlich.) pp. 305–313. (Surrey Beatty: Sydney.)
Scott, J. M., and Rachlow, J. L. (2011). Refocusing the debate about advocacy. Conservation Biology 25, 1–3.
| Refocusing the debate about advocacy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Steneck, N. H. (2011). Responsible advocacy in science: standards, benefits, and risks. Background paper for Workshop on Advocacy in Science, AAAS Scientific Responsibility, Human Rights and Law Program, 17–18 October 2011. Available at: https://www.aaas.org/report/report-responsible-advocacy-science-standards-benefits-and-risks. [accessed 8 July 2017].
Tomasso, J. (2007). Deliberate influence is advocacy. Bioscience 57, 213.
| Deliberate influence is advocacy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Voyer, M., and Gladstone, W. (2015). Human considerations in the use of marine protected areas for biodiversity conservation. Australian Zoologist , .
| Human considerations in the use of marine protected areas for biodiversity conservation.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Wiens, J. (1996). Oil, seabirds, and science. Bioscience 46, 587–597.
| Oil, seabirds, and science.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
