The conundrum of agenda-driven science in conservation

M. Zachariah Peery* (Corresponding Author), Gavin M. Jones, R. J. Gutiérrez, Steve M. Redpath, Alan B. Franklin, Daniel Simberloff, Monica G. Turner, Volker C. Radeloff, Gary C. White

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    2 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Conservation biology is a value‐laden discipline predicated on conserving biodiversity (Soulé 1985), a mission that does not always sit easily with objective science (Lackey 2007; Pielke 2007; Scott et al. 2007). While some encourage scientists to be responsible advocates for conservation (Garrard et al. 2016), others worry that objectivity in conservation research may suffer (Lackey 2007). At this time, we believe advocacy by scientists is essential for environmental conservation and, indeed, humanity. It is difficult to envision the state of our environment had scientists failed to encourage policy makers and the public to address emerging conservation problems. Nevertheless, conservation scientists must avoid misusing the scientific process to promote specific conservation outcomes (Wilholt 2009); doing so erodes the credibility of science and can produce undesirable consequences (Thomas 1992; Mills 2000; Rohr and McCoy 2010). We consider intentionally engaging in activities outside of professional norms to promote desired outcomes, as part of either the production or dissemination of science, to constitute “agenda‐driven science”. The issue of advocacy‐related bias in conservation science merits renewed discussion because conservation conflicts in an increasingly polarized world might tempt some to engage in agenda‐driven science to “win” a conflict (Redpath et al. 2015; Kareiva et al. 2018).
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)80-82
    Number of pages3
    JournalFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment
    Volume17
    Issue number2
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Mar 2019

    Fingerprint

    advocacy
    biodiversity
    Biological Sciences
    science
    mill
    conflict
    policy
    world
    norm
    environmental conservation
    public

    Keywords

    • CREDIBILITY
    • SCIENTISTS
    • ADVOCACY

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
    • Ecology

    Cite this

    Peery, M. Z., Jones, G. M., Gutiérrez, R. J., Redpath, S. M., Franklin, A. B., Simberloff, D., ... White, G. C. (2019). The conundrum of agenda-driven science in conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 17(2), 80-82. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2006

    The conundrum of agenda-driven science in conservation. / Peery, M. Zachariah (Corresponding Author); Jones, Gavin M.; Gutiérrez, R. J.; Redpath, Steve M.; Franklin, Alan B.; Simberloff, Daniel; Turner, Monica G.; Radeloff, Volker C.; White, Gary C.

    In: Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 17, No. 2, 03.2019, p. 80-82.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Peery, MZ, Jones, GM, Gutiérrez, RJ, Redpath, SM, Franklin, AB, Simberloff, D, Turner, MG, Radeloff, VC & White, GC 2019, 'The conundrum of agenda-driven science in conservation', Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 80-82. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2006
    Peery MZ, Jones GM, Gutiérrez RJ, Redpath SM, Franklin AB, Simberloff D et al. The conundrum of agenda-driven science in conservation. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2019 Mar;17(2):80-82. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2006
    Peery, M. Zachariah ; Jones, Gavin M. ; Gutiérrez, R. J. ; Redpath, Steve M. ; Franklin, Alan B. ; Simberloff, Daniel ; Turner, Monica G. ; Radeloff, Volker C. ; White, Gary C. / The conundrum of agenda-driven science in conservation. In: Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 2019 ; Vol. 17, No. 2. pp. 80-82.
    @article{3f6899a9c6eb4c06be2ba2188a533e4f,
    title = "The conundrum of agenda-driven science in conservation",
    abstract = "Conservation biology is a value‐laden discipline predicated on conserving biodiversity (Soul{\'e} 1985), a mission that does not always sit easily with objective science (Lackey 2007; Pielke 2007; Scott et al. 2007). While some encourage scientists to be responsible advocates for conservation (Garrard et al. 2016), others worry that objectivity in conservation research may suffer (Lackey 2007). At this time, we believe advocacy by scientists is essential for environmental conservation and, indeed, humanity. It is difficult to envision the state of our environment had scientists failed to encourage policy makers and the public to address emerging conservation problems. Nevertheless, conservation scientists must avoid misusing the scientific process to promote specific conservation outcomes (Wilholt 2009); doing so erodes the credibility of science and can produce undesirable consequences (Thomas 1992; Mills 2000; Rohr and McCoy 2010). We consider intentionally engaging in activities outside of professional norms to promote desired outcomes, as part of either the production or dissemination of science, to constitute “agenda‐driven science”. The issue of advocacy‐related bias in conservation science merits renewed discussion because conservation conflicts in an increasingly polarized world might tempt some to engage in agenda‐driven science to “win” a conflict (Redpath et al. 2015; Kareiva et al. 2018).",
    keywords = "CREDIBILITY, SCIENTISTS, ADVOCACY",
    author = "Peery, {M. Zachariah} and Jones, {Gavin M.} and Guti{\'e}rrez, {R. J.} and Redpath, {Steve M.} and Franklin, {Alan B.} and Daniel Simberloff and Turner, {Monica G.} and Radeloff, {Volker C.} and White, {Gary C.}",
    year = "2019",
    month = "3",
    doi = "10.1002/fee.2006",
    language = "English",
    volume = "17",
    pages = "80--82",
    journal = "Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment",
    issn = "1540-9295",
    publisher = "Ecological Society of America",
    number = "2",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - The conundrum of agenda-driven science in conservation

    AU - Peery, M. Zachariah

    AU - Jones, Gavin M.

    AU - Gutiérrez, R. J.

    AU - Redpath, Steve M.

    AU - Franklin, Alan B.

    AU - Simberloff, Daniel

    AU - Turner, Monica G.

    AU - Radeloff, Volker C.

    AU - White, Gary C.

    PY - 2019/3

    Y1 - 2019/3

    N2 - Conservation biology is a value‐laden discipline predicated on conserving biodiversity (Soulé 1985), a mission that does not always sit easily with objective science (Lackey 2007; Pielke 2007; Scott et al. 2007). While some encourage scientists to be responsible advocates for conservation (Garrard et al. 2016), others worry that objectivity in conservation research may suffer (Lackey 2007). At this time, we believe advocacy by scientists is essential for environmental conservation and, indeed, humanity. It is difficult to envision the state of our environment had scientists failed to encourage policy makers and the public to address emerging conservation problems. Nevertheless, conservation scientists must avoid misusing the scientific process to promote specific conservation outcomes (Wilholt 2009); doing so erodes the credibility of science and can produce undesirable consequences (Thomas 1992; Mills 2000; Rohr and McCoy 2010). We consider intentionally engaging in activities outside of professional norms to promote desired outcomes, as part of either the production or dissemination of science, to constitute “agenda‐driven science”. The issue of advocacy‐related bias in conservation science merits renewed discussion because conservation conflicts in an increasingly polarized world might tempt some to engage in agenda‐driven science to “win” a conflict (Redpath et al. 2015; Kareiva et al. 2018).

    AB - Conservation biology is a value‐laden discipline predicated on conserving biodiversity (Soulé 1985), a mission that does not always sit easily with objective science (Lackey 2007; Pielke 2007; Scott et al. 2007). While some encourage scientists to be responsible advocates for conservation (Garrard et al. 2016), others worry that objectivity in conservation research may suffer (Lackey 2007). At this time, we believe advocacy by scientists is essential for environmental conservation and, indeed, humanity. It is difficult to envision the state of our environment had scientists failed to encourage policy makers and the public to address emerging conservation problems. Nevertheless, conservation scientists must avoid misusing the scientific process to promote specific conservation outcomes (Wilholt 2009); doing so erodes the credibility of science and can produce undesirable consequences (Thomas 1992; Mills 2000; Rohr and McCoy 2010). We consider intentionally engaging in activities outside of professional norms to promote desired outcomes, as part of either the production or dissemination of science, to constitute “agenda‐driven science”. The issue of advocacy‐related bias in conservation science merits renewed discussion because conservation conflicts in an increasingly polarized world might tempt some to engage in agenda‐driven science to “win” a conflict (Redpath et al. 2015; Kareiva et al. 2018).

    KW - CREDIBILITY

    KW - SCIENTISTS

    KW - ADVOCACY

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85062217403&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.mendeley.com/research/conundrum-agendadriven-science-conservation

    U2 - 10.1002/fee.2006

    DO - 10.1002/fee.2006

    M3 - Article

    VL - 17

    SP - 80

    EP - 82

    JO - Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

    JF - Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment

    SN - 1540-9295

    IS - 2

    ER -