“Back off, man, I'm a scientist!” When marine conservation science meets policy

Marine “Conservation”: You Keep Using That Word but I Don't Think It Means What You Think It Means

“…However, readership of scientific articles is infamously low, with even highly-cited articles probably read only by a few hundred people, with the average article more likely read by just one or two academics (Parsons, 2013). Certainly, the likelihood that a conservation practitioner in the field reads the article is slim, with the likelihood of a policy-maker reading it even slimmer (Rose and Parsons, 2015). If the article is not open access and hidden behind a "paywall, " the chance of being read by those that need to know the information declines substantially.…”

“Advocacy” and “Activism” Are Not Dirty Words–How Activists Can Better Help Conservation Scientists

“…This requires a policy-maker to enact the appropriate regulation, which in turn needs someone to argue that the regulation is in society's, and policy-makers' , best interests. This often requires advocacy, i.e., making a convincing argument on behalf of that case, bearing in mind that policy-makers' decisions are likely not only science-based, but also based on their constituents' needs (e.g., jobs creation, economic benefits), values, and political expediency (Rose and Parsons, 2015).…”

“…Whether scientists should be advocates for conservation has been a matter of debate in the scientific community and literature (Brussard and Tull, 2007;Lackey, 2007;Noss, 2007;Chan, 2008;Nelson and Vucetich, 2009;Scott and Rachlow, 2010;Parsons, 2013;Rose and Parsons, 2015). Some are set against it, such as Lackey (2007), who considers that while scientists should be involved in the policy process, they should not show any preferences for conservation policies, nor even use valueladen terms in their work, such as good, healthy, or degradation.…”

“…However, for many scientists, advocacy is still almost a "dirty word" and they are staunch in their belief that scientists should remain in the ivory tower and remain "pure" (Rose and Parsons, 2015), and that scientists who engage in advocacy are not being objective and/or are no longer a "real" scientists (Parsons, 2013). But what exactly is advocacy?…”

The Kraken in the Aquarium: Questions that Urgently Need to be Addressed in Order to Advance Marine Conservation

“…An advocate needs information on an issue to be able to argue their case; thus scientists can be effective advocates because they are often trained to logically argue the facts of a case, whereas you do not need to be a scientist to be an activist (Parsons, 2013). Being an advocate for marine conservation science allows scientists to ensure the appropriate information gets into the right hands in the right format at the right time (Parsons, 2013;Parsons et al, 2015;Rose and Parsons, 2015).…”