Beyond Advocacy: Making Space for Conservation Scientists in Public Debate

Abstract

The topic of advocacy by scientists has been debated for decades, yet there is little agreement about whether scientists can or should be advocates. The fear of crossing a line into advocacy continues to hold many scientists back from contributing to public discourse, impoverishing public debate about important issues. We believe that progress in this debate is limited by a misconception about the relationship between scientific integrity and objectivity. We begin by unpacking this relationship and debunking three common misconceptions about advocacy by scientists: namely, that advocacy is harmful to scientific credibility, beyond the scope of science, and incompatible with science, which is value-free. We propose new ways of thinking about responsible advocacy by conservation scientists, drawing on practices from the health sciences, where researchers and professional bodies are empowered to act as health advocates. In so doing, we hope to open further space for conservation scientists to actively and legitimately engage in public debate about conservation issues.

Defending the scientific integrity of conservation‐policy processes

“…Given recent trends toward politicization of science around issues such as climate change, scientists have a civic responsibility to engage with the wider public to affirm that science is a crucial resource for developing evidence‐based policy and regulations that are in the public interest (McCright & Dunlap ; Garrard et al. ).…”

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

“…Disclosure of values and motivations may help avoid inadvertent advocacy, whereby personal preferences are unwittingly presented as scientific facts (Wilhere 2012). Reflexive thinking about the influence of research cultures, funding mechanisms, values and beliefs can aid such disclosure (Garrard et al 2015) and is likely to encourage constructive outcomes from SPIs.…”

Honest advocacy for nature: presenting a persuasive narrative for conservation

“…However, others argue that a broad spectrum of advocacy exists (Scott et al 2007 ). Indeed, Garrard et al ( 2015 ) presents a convincing argument when suggesting that it is a myth that advocacy always harms scientific credibility. Instead, they argue that space should be opened for conservation scientists to engage in debate.…”