Scientists versus Whaling: Science, Advocacy, and Errors of Judgment

Inadvertent advocacy

Policy advocacy is an issue regularly debated among conservation scientists. These debates have focused on intentional policy advocacy by scientists, but advocacy can also be unintentional. I define inadvertent policy advocacy as the act of unintentionally expressing personal policy preferences or ethical judgments in a way that is nearly indistinguishable from scientific judgments. A scientist may be well intentioned and intellectually honest but still inadvertently engage in policy advocacy. There are two ways to inadvertently engage in policy advocacy. First, a scientist expresses an opinion that she or he believes is a scientific judgment but it is actually an ethical judgment or personal policy preference. Second, a scientist expresses an opinion that he or she knows is an ethical judgment or personal policy preference but inadvertently fails to effectively communicate the nature of the opinion to policy makers or the public. I illustrate inadvertent advocacy with three examples: recovery criteria in recovery plans for species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, a scientific peer review of a recovery plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), and the International Union for Conservation of Nature's definition of threatened. In each example, scientists expressed ethical judgments or policy preferences, but their value judgments were not identified as such, and, hence, their value judgments were opaque to policy makers and the public. Circumstances suggest their advocacy was inadvertent. I believe conservation scientists must become acutely aware of the line between science and policy and avoid inadvertent policy advocacy because it is professional negligence, erodes trust in scientists and science, and perpetuates an ethical vacuum that undermines the rational political discourse necessary for the evolution of society's values. The principal remedy for inadvertent advocacy is education of conservation scientists in an effort to help them understand how science and values interact to fulfill the mission of conservation science.

Research on intact marine ecosystems: a lost era

It is proposed that a new, fifth era should be added to the four historical phases of marine research identified by Rupert Riedl, specifically an era devoted to studying and ameliorating disturbed marine ecosystems. In an age of global environmental deterioration, many marine ecosystems and organisms are high on the list of threatened entities. This poor status prompts research that would otherwise have been unnecessary and hinders research that would normally have been conducted. I argue that research into intact marine ecosystems is becoming increasingly difficult, and that most of our future insights into marine habitats will stem from knowledge gained by examining various disfunctions of those systems rather than their functions. The new era will therefore differ from past research in its underlying aim, the range of topics studied, the selection and funding of those topics, the validity of its conclusions, and in its urgency. Sea turtles and cetaceans are cited as case studies at the organismic level, shallow-water benthic communities, including coral reefs, at the ecosystem level.