On allegations of invasive species denialism

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.

From anti-science to environmental nihilism: the Fata Morgana of invasive species denialism

Invasive species denialism (ISD) is a controversial and hitherto underexplored topic, particularly with regard to its potential impacts on stakeholder engagement in support of invasive species management and policy. We examined how ISD is framed within the Great Lakes invasive species community, as well as the impacts of excluding and including those perceived as denialists in engagement efforts. We interviewed key informants in the region to gain an understanding of their framings of ISD, as well as focus groups allowing participants to discuss the impacts of exclusion and inclusion of stakeholders during the engagement process. ISD discussions were organised into three framings: 1) invasive species denialism; 2) invasive species cynicism; 3) invasive species nihilism. Participants raised concerns about outright exclusion of stakeholders and offered recommendations for mitigation of the impacts of inclusion of proponents of ISD in during stakeholder engagement. Our results have shown that a better understanding of the different framings of ISD is crucial to improve communication with stakeholders and to better inform responses and mitigation efforts. The newly defined framings of invasive species cynicism and invasive species nihilism demonstrate that more targeted responses to specific forms of ISD are needed to improve stakeholder engagement outcomes.

The importance of assessing positive and beneficial impacts of alien species

Extensive literature is available on the diversity and magnitude of impacts that alien species cause on recipient systems. Alien species may decrease or increase attributes of ecosystems (e.g. total biomass or species diversity), thus causing negative and positive environmental impacts. Alien species may also negatively or positively impact attributes linked to local human communities (e.g. the number of people involved in a given activity). Ethical and societal values contribute to define these environmental and socio-economic impacts as deleterious or beneficial. Whilst most of the literature focuses on the deleterious effects of alien taxa, some recognise their beneficial impacts on ecosystems and human activities. Impact assessment frameworks show a similar tendency to evaluate mainly deleterious impacts: only relatively few, and not widely applied, frameworks incorporate the beneficial impacts of alien species. Here, we provide a summary of the frameworks assessing beneficial impacts and briefly discuss why they might have been less frequently cited and applied than frameworks assessing exclusively deleterious impacts. Then, we review arguments that invoke a greater consideration of positive and beneficial impacts caused by alien species across the invasion science literature. We collate and describe arguments from a set of 47 papers, grouping them in two categories (value-free and value-laden), which span from a theoretical, basic science perspective to an applied science perspective. We also provide example cases associated with each argument. We advocate that the development of transparent and evidence-based frameworks assessing positive and beneficial impacts might advance our scientific understanding of impact dynamics and better inform management and prioritisation decisions. We also advise that this development should be achieved by recognising the underlying ethical and societal values of the frameworks and their intrinsic limitations. The evaluation of positive and beneficial impacts through impact assessment frameworks should not be seen as an attempt to outweigh or to discount deleterious impacts of alien taxa but rather as an opportunity to provide additional information for scientists, managers and policymakers.

A review of the critics of invasion biology

Herein, I review existing criticisms of the field of invasion biology. Firstly, I identifiy problems of conceptual weaknesses, including disagreements regarding: (i) definitions of invasive, impact, and pristine conditions, and (ii) ecological assumptions such as species equilibrium, niche saturation, and climax communities. Secondly, I discuss methodological problems include the misuse of correlations, biases in impact reviews and risk assessment, and difficulties in predicting the effects of species introductions or eradications. Finally, I analyse the social conflict regarding invasive species management and differences in moral and philosophical foundations. I discuss the recent emergence of alternatives to traditional invasion biology approaches, including the concept of novel ecosystems, conciliation biology, and compassionate conservation. Understanding different value systems will be the first step to reconciling the different perspectives related to this controversial topic.

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.

A moral panic over cats

Some conservationists believe that free-ranging cats pose an enormous risk to biodiversity and public health and therefore should be eliminated from the landscape by any means necessary. They further claim that those who question the science or ethics behind their arguments are science deniers (merchants of doubt) seeking to mislead the public. As much as we share a commitment to conservation of biodiversity and wild nature, we believe these ideas are wrong and fuel an unwarranted moral panic over cats. Those who question the ecological or epidemiological status of cats are not science deniers, and it is a false analogy to compare them with corporate and right-wing special interests that perpetrate disinformation campaigns over issues, such as smoking and climate change. There are good conservation and public-health reasons and evidence to be skeptical that free-ranging cats constitute a disaster for biodiversity and human health in all circumstances. Further, there are significant and largely unaddressed ethical and policy issues (e.g., the ethics and efficacy of lethal management) relative to how people ought to value and coexist with cats and native wildlife. Society is better served by a collaborative approach to produce better scientific and ethical knowledge about free-ranging cats.