Beyond Advocacy: Making Space for Conservation Scientists in Public Debate

Wildfire and climate change adaptation of western North American forests: a case for intentional management

Forest landscapes across western North America (wNA) have experienced extensive changes over the last two centuries, while climatic warming has become a global reality over the last four decades. Resulting interactions between historical increases in forested area and density and recent rapid warming, increasing insect mortality, and wildfire burned areas, are now leading to substantial abrupt landscape alterations. These outcomes are forcing forest planners and managers to identify strategies that can modify future outcomes that are ecologically and/or socially undesirable. Past forest management, including widespread harvest of fire- and climate-tolerant large old trees and old forests, fire exclusion (both Indigenous and lightning ignitions), and highly effective wildfire suppression have contributed to the current state of wNA forests. These practices were successful at meeting short-term demands, but they match poorly to modern realities. Hagmann et al. review a century of observations and multi-scale, multi-proxy, research evidence that details widespread changes in forested landscapes and wildfire regimes since the influx of European colonists. Over the preceding 10 millennia, large areas of wNA were already settled and proactively managed with intentional burning by Indigenous tribes. Prichard et al. then review the research on management practices historically applied by Indigenous tribes and currently applied by some managers to intentionally manage forests for resilient conditions. They address 10 questions surrounding the application and relevance of these management practices. Here, we highlight the main findings of both papers and offer recommendations for management. We discuss progress paralysis that often occurs with strict adherence to the precautionary principle; offer insights for dealing with the common problem of irreducible uncertainty and suggestions for reframing management and policy direction; and identify key knowledge gaps and research needs.

Framing climate change as a human health issue: enough to tip the scale in climate policy?

Almost four decades of climate science have not yet led to transformative policy change at the pace and scale required to confront the climate crisis. Colleagues in the planetary health community attribute much potential to framing climate change as human health issue in order to create greater impact on policy makers. In this Personal View, we discuss the promise and limitations of this approach by drawing on insights from political science and public policy with regards to the complexity of these contentious policy issues. We argue that we, as academics, have a moral obligation to embrace an active role in the knowledge-to-action (KTA) sphere and that we would be well advised to expand our KTA approach to include evidence-based strategies, such as lobbying or civil resistance. As scientists, we can no longer wait to embrace the realpolitik insights of political science to move our evidence into policy action.

Transparency About Values and Assertions of Fact in Natural Resource Management

Worldwide, unsustainable use of nature threatens many ecosystems and the services they provide for a broad diversity of life, including humans. Yet, governments commonly claim that the best available science supports their policies governing extraction of natural resources. We confront this apparent paradox by assessing the complexity of the intersections among value judgments, fact claims, and scientifically verified facts. Science can only describe how nature works and predict the likely outcomes of our actions, whereas values influence which actions or objectives society ought to pursue. In the context of natural resource management, particularly of fisheries and wildlife, governments typically set population targets or use quotas. Although these are fundamentally value judgments about how much of a resource a group of people can extract, quotas are often justified as numerical guidance derived from abstracted, mathematical, or theoretical models of extraction. We confront such justifications by examining failures in transparency about value judgments, which may accompany unsupported assertions articulated as factual claims. We illustrate this with two examples. Our first case concerns protection and human use of habitats harboring the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), revealing how biologists and policy scholars have argued for divergent roles of scientists within policy debates, and how debates between scientists engaged in policy-relevant research reveal undisclosed value judgments about communication of science beyond its role as a source of description (observation, measurement, analysis, and inference). Our second case concerns protection and use of endangered gray wolves (Canis lupus) and shows how undisclosed value judgments distorted the science behind a government policy. Finally, we draw from the literature of multiple disciplines and wildlife systems to recommend several improvements to the standards of transparency in applied research in natural resource management. These recommendations will help to prevent value-based distortions of science that can result in unsustainable uses and eventual extinctions of populations. We describe methods for communicating about values that avoid commingling factual claims and discuss approaches to communicating science that do not perpetuate the misconception that science alone can dictate policy without consideration of values. Our remedies can improve transparency in both expert and public debate about preserving and using natural resources, and thereby help prevent non-human population declines worldwide.

Engaged Science: Strategies, Opportunities and Benefits

Science is increasingly intertwined with an array of pressing societal issues, from the coronavirus pandemic response, to environmental concerns, to major national security threats. Meanwhile, scientists remain one of the most trusted groups of professionals and are looked to as both sources of inspiration for society’s collective curiosity and effective messengers of useful technical information. While traditional scientific training has not emphasized the skills needed to coherently translate nuanced scientific research to audiences beyond one’s inner academic circle, today’s scientists (and, prominently, scientists-in-training) are increasingly seeking out ways to engage with such broader audiences and apply their skills to real-world problems. Here, we offer engagement strategies for scientists across levels of scale (e.g., at the individual, lab group, department/university, and cross-institutional levels), highlighting both existing opportunities and areas where improved capacity for science engagement is warranted. We argue that efforts to enhance and harmonize engagement efforts will have multi-faceted benefits, with greater opportunities for science-society dialogues, enhanced equity and inclusivity in such dialogues, and broader professional opportunities for early career scientists. While we acknowledge that the development of effective scientific engagement skills requires interest, effort, time and resources, we argue that the development of skills for effective public engagement is a worthwhile and necessary element of scientific training that enables unique, rewarding, and multifaceted professional opportunities.

From a variety of ethics to the integrity and congruence of research on biodiversity conservation

This article aims to find the elements that are required for a common ethical approach that is suitable for the different perspectives adopted in integrative biodiversity conservation research. A general reflection on the integrity of research is a priority worldwide, with a common aim to promote good research practice. Beyond the relationship between researcher and research subject, the integrity of research is considered in a broader perspective which entails scientific integrity towards society. In research involving a variety of disciplines and a diversity of legal and ethical frameworks, there is a need of harmony between different sets of values. The notion of congruence (or more pragmatically, alignment) reflects the consistency of ethics in research within the biodiversity conservation's community of researchers. It also bears on the coherence of values shared between the scientific community and society. We examine the notion of research integrity in a broad sense. This examination is to be conducted in relation to the goal of protecting ecological integrity, which is at the core of biodiversity conservation. The notion of integrity constraints should be investigated further to develop a pragmatic response to the need for integrity and congruence in research for biodiversity conservation.

Researchers must be aware of their roles at the interface of ecosystem services science and policy

Scientists working on ecosystem service (ES) science are engaged in a mission-driven discipline. They can contribute to science-policy interfaces where knowledge is co-produced and used. How scientists engage with the governance arena to mobilise their knowledge remains a matter of personal choice, influenced by individual values. ES science cannot be considered neutral and a discussion of the values that shape it forms an important part of the sustainability dialogue. We propose a simple decision tree to help ES scientists identify their role and the purpose of the knowledge they produce. We characterise six idealised scientific postures spanning possible roles at the science-policy interface (pure scientist, science arbiter-guarantor, issue advocate-guardian, officer, honest broker and stealth issue advocate) and illustrate them with feedbacks from interviews. We encourage ES scientists to conduct a reflexive exploration of their attitudes regarding knowledge production and use, with the intention of progressing toward a higher recognition of the political and ethical importance of ES assessments.

Defending the scientific integrity of conservation-policy processes

Government agencies faced with politically controversial decisions often discount or ignore scientific information, whether from agency staff or nongovernmental scientists. Recent developments in scientific integrity (the ability to perform, use, communicate, and publish science free from censorship or political interference) in Canada, Australia, and the United States demonstrate a similar trajectory. A perceived increase in scientific-integrity abuses provokes concerted pressure by the scientific community, leading to efforts to improve scientific-integrity protections under a new administration. However, protections are often inconsistently applied and are at risk of reversal under administrations publicly hostile to evidence-based policy. We compared recent challenges to scientific integrity to determine what aspects of scientific input into conservation policy are most at risk of political distortion and what can be done to strengthen safeguards against such abuses. To ensure the integrity of outbound communications from government scientists to the public, we suggest governments strengthen scientific integrity policies, include scientists' right to speak freely in collective-bargaining agreements, guarantee public access to scientific information, and strengthen agency culture supporting scientific integrity. To ensure the transparency and integrity with which information from nongovernmental scientists (e.g., submitted comments or formal policy reviews) informs the policy process, we suggest governments broaden the scope of independent reviews, ensure greater diversity of expert input and transparency regarding conflicts of interest, require a substantive response to input from agencies, and engage proactively with scientific societies. For their part, scientists and scientific societies have a responsibility to engage with the public to affirm that science is a crucial resource for developing evidence-based policy and regulations in the public interest.

Honest advocacy for nature: presenting a persuasive narrative for conservation

Conservation scientists are increasingly recognising the value of communicating policy-relevant knowledge to policy-makers. Whilst considerable progress has been made in offering practical advice for scientists seeking to engage more closely with decision-makers, researchers have provided few tangible examples to learn from. This paper uses an English case study, but draws out important high-level messages relevant to conservation scientists worldwide. The case study looks at how the Lawton Review presented knowledge persuasively about the suitability of England's ecological network to deal with future pressures. Through skilful framing of rigorous scientific knowledge it was able to make a significant impact on government policy. Impact was achieved through: (1) selecting politically salient frames through which to communicate; (2) using clear, accessible language, and; (3) conducting rigorous science using an authoritative team of experts. Although its publication coincided with a favourable policy window, the Lawton Review seized on this opportunity to communicate a rigorously argued, persuasive and practical conservation message; in other words, it performed 'honest advocacy'. Thus, whilst it remains important to conduct scientific research with technical rigour, conservation scientists could also benefit from identifying salient frames for conservation and communicating clearly.