A toolkit for open and pluralistic conservation science

Abstract

Conservation science practitioners seek to preempt irreversible impacts on species, ecosystems, and social–ecological systems, requiring efficient and timely action even when data and understanding are unavailable, incomplete, dated, or biased. These challenges are exacerbated by the scientific community's capacity to consistently distinguish between reliable and unreliable evidence, including the recognition of questionable research practices (QRPs, or “questionable practices”), which may threaten the credibility of research, including harming trust in well‐designed and reliable scientific research. In this paper, we propose a “toolkit” for open and pluralistic conservation science, highlighting common questionable practices and sources of bias and indicating where remedies for these problems may be found. The toolkit provides an accessible resource for anyone conducting, reviewing, or using conservation research, to identify sources of false claims or misleading evidence that arise unintentionally, or through misunderstandings or carelessness in the application of scientific methods and analyses. We aim to influence editorial and review practices and hopefully to remedy problems before they are published or deployed in policy or conservation practice.

Social Considerations and Best Practices for Engaging Publics on Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement

“…All such methods are both knowledge-and value-centric and aim to convert values or social priorities to performance measures that can be used to evaluate policies, actions, or specific decisions (Renn, 1999;Estévez et al, 2015;Mahmoudi et al, 2013;Burgman et al, 2023). For example, if the case were deciding upon different locations for a pilot installation of an OAE facility, high public support might be a function of designs that prioritize social benefits (e.g., which can include expert knowledge on tax revenues or social priorities for learning or employment opportunities), require relatively less energy (e.g., again, based on expert assessment), work with locally trusted institutions and actors (who might define ethical parameters and assign consent), and offer outcomes or conditions co-designed (e.g., such as ensuring that work will cease should problematic impacts follow).…”

Guide to Best Practices in Ocean Alkalinity Enhancement Research

“…All such methods are both knowledge-and value-centric and aim to convert values or social priorities to performance measures that can be used to evaluate policies, actions, or specific decisions (Renn, 1999;Estévez et al, 2015;Mahmoudi et al, 2013;Burgman et al, 2023). For example, if the case were deciding upon different locations for a pilot installation of an OAE facility, high public support might be a function of designs that prioritize social benefits (e.g., which can include expert knowledge on tax revenues or social priorities for learning or employment opportunities), require relatively less energy (e.g., again, based on expert assessment), work with locally trusted institutions and actors (who might define ethical parameters and assign consent), and offer outcomes or conditions co-designed (e.g., such as ensuring that work will cease should problematic impacts follow).…”

Response to Toshihide Tsuda, Yumiko Miyano and Eiji Yamamoto [1]

“…A year after publication of our Toolkit article [2], not only do we see its application by Tsuda et al [1] in the field of Epidemiology, but now, a few weeks later in Conservation Letters, a journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, our Toolkit is seen to have inspired its authors to fashion it for use in the Biological Sciences [9]. Burgman et al [9] have used our Toolkit [2] as a starting point and adapted the items to reflect issues of special relevance to Conservation Biology, focusing on issues that are relevant in conservation and environmental science.…”

“…A year after publication of our Toolkit article [2], not only do we see its application by Tsuda et al [1] in the field of Epidemiology, but now, a few weeks later in Conservation Letters, a journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, our Toolkit is seen to have inspired its authors to fashion it for use in the Biological Sciences [9]. Burgman et al [9] have used our Toolkit [2] as a starting point and adapted the items to reflect issues of special relevance to Conservation Biology, focusing on issues that are relevant in conservation and environmental science. We are gratified to see, as noted above, awareness of the utility of toolkits increasing, not only in the field of Epidemiology, but now too its utility to a broader assemblage of research studies and disciplines, the latest being the field of Conservation Biology, a field where rational evidence for preventing harms on an ecological and global scale is so critical.…”