Defending the scientific integrity of conservation‐policy processes

Carroll, Carlos; Hartl, Brett; Goldman, Gretchen; Rohlf, Daniel J.; Treves, Adrian; Kerr, Jeremy T.; Ritchie, Euan G.; Kingsford, Richard T.; Gibbs, Katherine; Maron, Martine; Watson, James

doi:10.1111/cobi.12958

Cited by 36 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Canada is one of many countries which have experienced weakened laws and policies related to the environment and scientific integrity in the last decade, including those concerning EA (Reynolds et al 2012;Carroll et al 2017). Some form of EA has been taking place in Canada since the 1930s (Couch et al 1983), with formal EA legislation adopted at the federal (national) level in 1995.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-sectoral input for the potential role of science in Canada’s environmental assessment

Jacob

Moore

Fox

et al. 2018

FACETS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since being elected in 2015, Canada's federal Liberal government has taken steps to overhaul major environment-related laws and policies, including federal environmental assessment (EA) and regulatory processes. During 2016-2017, a government-appointed panel toured Canada and received >1000 suggestions from diverse sectors of society regarding EA reform. Yet, different sectors of society may have different views concerning scientific components of EA. We analyzed written submissions during public consultation (categorized into five sectors) regarding five key scientific components of EA: (1) openly sharing information, (2) evaluating cumulative effects, (3) scientific rigour, (4) transparency in decision-making, and (5) independence between regulators and proponents. On the whole, submissions from Indigenous groups, non-governmental organizations, and individuals/academics supported strengthening all five components. In contrast, most contributions from industry/industry associations, and, to a lesser extent, government bodies or agencies, suggested that there was no need for increased scientific rigour or increased independence. These findings indicate that there is cross-sectoral support for strengthening some scientific aspects of EA. However, the degree to which the Government of Canada strengthens the scientific rigour and independence of EA will indicate whether environmental decision-making in Canada is aligned with preferences from industry or the rest of Canada.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-sectoral input for the potential role of science in Canada’s environmental assessment

Jacob

Moore

Fox

et al. 2018

FACETS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Regardless of who sponsors the external scrutiny, the authority of the review product increases if it is subject to a journal‐based peer‐review process (Carroll et al. ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Accordingly, we encourage concerned scientists to speak directly to the public about potential malfeasance by governments (Carroll et al. ; Goldman et al. ) or misinformation provided by other interest groups.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Those conducting reviews should be compensated, although some may consider pro bono contributions (Society for Conservation Biology 2004). Regardless of who sponsors the external scrutiny, the authority of the review product increases if it is subject to a journal-based peer-review process (Carroll et al 2017).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Given the long time scales on which the peer-review system operates, outreach is also important. Accordingly, we encourage concerned scientists to speak directly to the public about potential malfeasance by governments (Carroll et al 2017;Goldman et al 2017) or misinformation provided by other interest groups. We understand Conservation Biology Volume 32, No.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations