Inadvertent advocacy

Development of a Species Status Assessment Process for Decisions under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Decisions under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) require scientific input on the risk that the species will become extinct. A series of critiques on the role of science in ESA decisions have called for improved consistency and transparency in species risk assessments and clear distinctions between science input and policy application. To address the critiques and document the emerging practice of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), we outline an assessment process based on principles and practices of risk and decision analyses that results in a scientific report on species status. The species status assessment (SSA) process has three successive stages: 1) document the life history and ecological relationships of the species in question to provide the foundation for the assessment, 2) describe and hypothesize causes for the current condition of the species, and 3) forecast the species' future condition. The future condition refers to the ability of a species to sustain populations in the wild under plausible future scenarios. The scenarios help explore the species' response to future environmental stressors and to assess the potential for conservation to intervene to improve its status. The SSA process incorporates modeling and scenario planning for prediction of extinction risk and applies the conservation biology principles of representation, resiliency, and redundancy to evaluate the current and future condition. The SSA results in a scientific report distinct from policy application, which contributes to streamlined, transparent, and consistent decision-making and allows for greater technical participation by experts outside of the USFWS, for example, by state natural resource agencies. We present two case studies based on assessments of the eastern massasauga rattlesnake Sistrurus catenatus and the Sonoran Desert tortoise Gopherus morafkai to illustrate the process. The SSA builds upon the past threat-focused assessment by including systematic and explicit analyses of a species' future response to stressors and conservation, and as a result, we believe it provides an improved scientific analysis for ESA decisions.

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.

Expert judgment and uncertainty regarding the protection of imperiled species

Decisions concerning the appropriate listing status of species under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) can be controversial even among conservationists. These decisions may determine whether a species persists in the near term and have long-lasting social and political ramifications. Given the ESA's mandate that such decisions be based on the best available science, it is important to examine what factors contribute to experts' judgments concerning the listing of species. We examined how a variety of factors (such as risk perception, value orientations, and norms) influenced experts' judgments concerning the appropriate listing status of the grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) population in the Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem. Experts were invited to complete an online survey examining their perceptions of the threats grizzly bears face and their listing recommendation. Although experts' assessments of the threats to this species were strongly correlated with their recommendations for listing status, this relationship did not exist when other cognitive factors were included in the model. Specifically, values related to human use of wildlife and norms (i.e., a respondent's expectation of peers' assessments) were most influential in listing status recommendations. These results suggest that experts' decisions about listing, like all human decisions, are subject to the use of heuristics (i.e., decision shortcuts). An understanding of how heuristics and related biases affect decisions under uncertainty can help inform decision making about threatened and endangered species and may be useful in designing effective processes for protection of imperiled species.

The role of scientists in statutory interpretation of the U.S. Endangered Species Act

Like many federal statutes, the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA) contains vague or ambiguous language. The meaning imparted to the ESA's unclear language can profoundly impact the fates of endangered and threatened species. Hence, conservation scientists should contribute to the interpretation of the ESA when vague or ambiguous language contains scientific words or refers to scientific concepts. Scientists need to know at least these 2 facts about statutory interpretation: statutory interpretation is subjective and the potential influence of normative values results in different expectations for the parties involved. With the possible exception of judges, all conventional participants in statutory interpretation are serving their own interests, advocating for their preferred policies, or biased. Hence, scientists can play a unique role by informing the interpretative process with objective, policy-neutral information. Conversely, scientists may act as advocates for their preferred interpretation of unclear statutory language. The different roles scientists might play in statutory interpretation raise the issues of advocacy and competency. Advocating for a preferred statutory interpretation is legitimate political behavior by scientists, but statutory interpretation can be strongly influenced by normative values. Therefore, scientists must be careful not to commit stealth policy advocacy. Most conservation scientists lack demonstrable competence in statutory interpretation and therefore should consult or collaborate with lawyers when interpreting statutes. Professional scientific societies are widely perceived by the public as unbiased sources of objective information. Therefore, professional scientific societies should remain policy neutral and present all interpretations of unclear statutory language; explain the semantics and science both supporting and contradicting each interpretation; and describe the potential consequences of implementing each interpretation. A review of scientists' interpretations of the phrase "significant portion of its range" in the ESA is used to critique the role of scientists and professional societies in statutory interpretation.

Guidance on the Use of Best Available Science under the U.S. Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act's best available science mandate has been widely emulated and reflects a Congressional directive to ensure that decisions made under the Act are informed by reliable knowledge applied using a structured approach. We build on a standing literature by describing the role of the best science directive in the Act's implementation and best practices that can be employed to realize the directive. Next we describe recurring impediments to realizing determinations by the federal wildlife agencies that are based on the best available science. We then identify the types of data, analyses, and modeling efforts that can serve as best science. Finally, we consider the role and application of best available science in effects analysis and adaptive management. We contend that more rigorous adherence by the wildlife agencies to the best available science directive and more assiduous judicial oversight of agency determinations and actions is essential for effective implementation of the Act, particularly where it has substantial ramifications for listed species, stakeholder segments of society, or both.

Credibility and advocacy in conservation science

Conservation policy sits at the nexus of natural science and politics. On the one hand, conservation scientists strive to maintain scientific credibility by emphasizing that their research findings are the result of disinterested observations of reality. On the other hand, conservation scientists are committed to conservation even if they do not advocate a particular policy. The professional conservation literature offers guidance on negotiating the relationship between scientific objectivity and political advocacy without damaging conservation science's credibility. The value of this guidance, however, may be restricted by limited recognition of credibility's multidimensionality and emergent nature: it emerges through perceptions of expertise, goodwill, and trustworthiness. We used content analysis of the literature to determine how credibility is framed in conservation science as it relates to apparent contradictions between science and advocacy. Credibility typically was framed as a static entity lacking dimensionality. Authors identified expertise or trustworthiness as important, but rarely mentioned goodwill. They usually did not identify expertise, goodwill, or trustworthiness as dimensions of credibility or recognize interactions among these 3 dimensions of credibility. This oversimplification may limit the ability of conservation scientists to contribute to biodiversity conservation. Accounting for the emergent quality and multidimensionality of credibility should enable conservation scientists to advance biodiversity conservation more effectively.

Hunting down the chimera of multiple disciplinarity in conservation science

The consensus is that both ecological and social factors are essential dimensions of conservation research and practice. However, much of the literature on multiple disciplinary collaboration focuses on the difficulties of undertaking it. This review of the challenges of conducting multiple disciplinary collaboration offers a framework for thinking about the diversity and complexity of this endeavor. We focused on conceptual challenges, of which 5 main categories emerged: methodological challenges, value judgments, theories of knowledge, disciplinary prejudices, and interdisciplinary communication. The major problems identified in these areas have proved remarkably persistent in the literature surveyed (c.1960-2012). Reasons for these failures to learn from past experience include the pressure to produce positive outcomes and gloss over disagreements, the ephemeral nature of many such projects and resulting lack of institutional memory, and the apparent complexity and incoherence of the endeavor. We suggest that multiple disciplinary collaboration requires conceptual integration among carefully selected multiple disciplinary team members united in investigating a shared problem or question. We outline a 9-point sequence of steps for setting up a successful multiple disciplinary project. This encompasses points on recruitment, involving stakeholders, developing research questions, negotiating power dynamics and hidden values and conceptual differences, explaining and choosing appropriate methods, developing a shared language, facilitating on-going communications, and discussing data integration and project outcomes. Although numerous solutions to the challenges of multiple disciplinary research have been proposed, lessons learned are often lost when projects end or experienced individuals move on. We urge multiple disciplinary teams to capture the challenges recognized, and solutions proposed, by their researchers while projects are in process. A database of well-documented case studies would showcase theories and methods from a variety of disciplines and their interactions, enable better comparative study and evaluation, and provide a useful resource for developing future projects and training multiple disciplinary researchers.