Logical fallacies and invasion biology

Logical fallacies persist in invasion biology and blaming the messengers will not improve accountability in this field: a response to Frank et al

We analyze the "Logical fallacies and reasonable debates in invasion biology: a response to Guiaşu and Tindale" article by Frank et al., and also discuss this work in the context of recent intense debates in invasion biology, and reactions by leading invasion biologists to critics of aspects of their field. While we acknowledge the attempt by Frank et al., at least in the second half of their paper, to take into account more diverse points of view about non-native species and their complex roles in ecosystems, we also find the accusations of misrepresenting invasion biology, for instance by "cherry-picking" and "constructing 'straw people'", directed at the Guiaşu and Tindale study to be unwarranted. Despite the sometimes harsh responses by leading invasion biologists to critics of their field, we believe that persistent and fundamental problems remain in invasion biology, and we discuss some of these problems in this article. Failing to recognize these problems, and simply dismissing or minimizing legitimate criticisms, will not advance the cause, or enhance the general appeal, of invasion biology and will prevent meaningful progress in understanding the multiple contributions non-native species can bring to various ecosystems worldwide. We recommend taking a more open-minded and pragmatic approach towards non-native species and the novel ecosystems they are an integral part of.

Consensus and controversy in the discipline of invasion science

Approaches, values, and perceptions in invasion science are highly dynamic, and like in other disciplines, views among different people can diverge. This has led to debate in the field specifically surrounding the core themes of values, management, impacts, and terminology. Considering these debates, we surveyed 698 scientists and practitioners globally to assess levels of polarization (opposing views) on core and contentious topics. The survey was distributed online (via Google Forms) and promoted through listservs and social media. Although there were generally high levels of consensus among respondents, there was some polarization (scores of ≥0.39 [top quartile]). Relating to values, there was high polarization regarding claims of invasive species denialism, whether invasive species contribute to biodiversity, and how biodiversity reporting should be conducted. With regard to management, there were polarized views on banning the commercial use of beneficial invasive species, the extent to which stakeholders' perceptions should influence management, whether invasive species use alone is an appropriate control strategy, and whether eradication of invasive plants is possible. For impacts, there was high polarization concerning whether invasive species drive or are a side effect of degradation and whether invasive species benefits are understated. For terminology, polarized views related to defining invasive species based only on spread, whether species can be labeled as invasive in their native ranges, and whether language used is too xenophobic. Factor and regression analysis revealed that views were particularly divergent between people working on different invasive taxa (plants and mammals) and in different disciplines (between biologists and social scientists), between academics and practitioners, and between world regions (between Africa and the Global North). Unlike in other studies, age and gender had a limited influence on response patterns. Better integration globally and between disciplines, taxa, and sectors (e.g., academic vs. practitioners) could help build broader understanding and consensus.

Misleading estimates of economic impacts of biological invasions: Including the costs but not the benefits

The economic costs of non-indigenous species (NIS) are a key factor for the allocation of efforts and resources to eradicate or control baneful invasions. Their assessments are challenging, but most suffer from major flaws. Among the most important are the following: (1) the inclusion of actual damage costs together with various ancillary expenditures which may or may not be indicative of the real economic damage due to NIS; (2) the inclusion of the costs of unnecessary or counterproductive control initiatives; (3) the inclusion of controversial NIS-related costs whose economic impacts are questionable; (4) the assessment of the negative impacts only, ignoring the positive ones that most NIS have on the economy, either directly or through their ecosystem services. Such estimates necessarily arrive at negative and often highly inflated values, do not reflect the net damage and economic losses due to NIS, and can significantly misguide management and resource allocation decisions. We recommend an approach based on holistic costs and benefits that are assessed using likely scenarios and their counter-factual.

The science of spin: targeted strategies to manufacture doubt with detrimental effects on environmental and public health

BACKGROUND

Numerous groups, such as the tobacco industry, have deliberately altered and misrepresented knowable facts and empirical evidence to promote an agenda, often for monetary benefit, with consequences for environmental and public health. Previous research has explored cases individually, but none have conducted an in-depth comparison between cases. The purpose of this study was to compile a comprehensive list of tactics used by disparate groups and provide a framework for identifying further instances of manufactured doubt.

METHODS

We examined scholarly books, peer-reviewed articles, well-researched journalism pieces, and legal evidence related to five disparate industries and organizations selected for their destructive impacts on environmental and public health (tobacco, coal, and sugar industries, manufacturers of the pesticide Atrazine, and the Marshall Institute, an institute focused on climate change research, and other scientists from the era that associated with those in the Institute). These documents provided evidence for a list of tactics used to generate pro-industry spin and manufacture doubt about conferred harm. We then identified trends among sets of strategies that could explain their differential use or efficacy.

RESULTS

We recognized 28 unique tactics used to manufacture doubt. Five of these tactics were used by all five organizations, suggesting that they are key features of manufactured doubt. The intended audience influences the strategy used to misinform, and logical fallacies contribute to their efficacy.

CONCLUSIONS

This list of tactics can be used by others to build a case that an industry or group is deliberately manipulating information associated with their actions or products. Improved scientific and rhetorical literacy could be used to render them less effective, depending on the audience targeted, and ultimately allow for the protection of both environmental health and public health more generally.

Fact and value in invasion biology

Some invasion biologists contend their science has reached a consensus on 4 facts: cost estimates of the effects of nonindigenous species provided in papers by Pimentel et al. are credible; invasive species generally, not just predators, pose significant extinction threats; characteristic biological differences distinguish novel from native species, ecosystems, communities, and processes; and ontological dualism, which distinguishes between natural and anthropogenic processes and influences, plays a useful role in biological inquiry. I contend there is no convincing empirical evidence for any of these propositions. Leading invasion biologists cite their agreement about these propositions as evidence for them and impugn the motives of critics who believe consensus should be based on evidence not the other way around.

Rethinking the native range concept

A species is not native outside its native range, but native range is not precisely defined. The invasion literature contains wide discussion of the core concepts such as naturalization, invasiveness, and ecological impact, but the concept of native range has received so little attention that a formal definition does not exist. I considered, among other impediments to a formal definition of native range, the sometimes arbitrariness of the spatial and temporal limits assigned to native range. Broad questions that remain include whether invasion theory can be used to define the native range for species without non-native ranges.

On allegations of invasive species denialism

Science denialism retards evidenced-based policy and practice and should be challenged. It has been a particular concern for mitigating global environmental issues, such as anthropogenic climate change. But allegations of science denialism must also be well founded and evidential or they risk eroding public trust in science and scientists. Recently, 77 published works by scholars, scientists, and science writers were identified as containing invasive species denialism (ISD; i.e., rejection of well-supported facts about invasive species, particularly the global scientific consensus about their negative impacts). We reevaluated 75 of these works but could find no examples of refutation of scientific facts and only 5 articles with text perhaps consistent with one of the 5 characteristics of science denialism. We found, therefore, that allegations of ISD were misplaced. These accusations of science denialism may have arisen because invasion biology defines its subjects-invasive species-based on multiple subjective and normative judgments. Thus, more than other applied sciences its consensus is one of shared values as much as agreed knowledge. Criticisms of invasion biology have largely targeted those subjective and normative judgments and their global imposition, not the knowledge on which the discipline is based. Regrettably, a few invasion biologists have misinterpreted the critique of their values-based consensus as a denial of their science when it is not. To make invasion biology a more robust and widely accepted science and to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings and conflicts, invasion biologists could be more accepting of perspectives originating from other disciplines and more open to values-based critique from scholars and scientists outside their field. This recommendation applies to all conservation sciences, especially those addressing global challenges, because these sciences must serve and be relevant to communities with an extraordinary diversity of cultures and values.