Model for improved undergraduate training in translational conservation science

Abstract

The "Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU) in Biodiversity Conservation" project models transdisciplinary training in conservation science, and particularly in the emerging field of conservation paleobiology (CPB), which applies geohistorical records (e.g., sediments, fossils) and approaches to solve conservation problems. We analyzed recent funding patterns in the National Science Foundation REU program (Biological Sciences and Geosciences directorates) and found that, at most REU sites, undergraduates conduct individual projects supervised by a mentor. In contrast, at the REU in Biodiversity Conservation Site, students from geology, biology, archaeology, and environmental sciences worked in transdisciplinary teams on conservation-related research using fossil, archaeological, and modern samples. The project successfully incorporated CPB approaches and taught research and soft skills useful in conservation; 85% of students subsequently pursued STEM graduate study or employment. However, because translational science partnerships with conservation practitioners were not sought, the researchimplementation gap remained. We propose a new model for REU sites involving conservation practitioners and stakeholders as partners in research that includes the human dimension and meets community needs, resulting in transdisciplinary, team-focused training that yields actionable results. We recommend that the National Science Foundation encourage researchers to think beyond typical oneon-one mentorship when planning an REU, especially for conservation science projects.

Knowing but not doing: Quantifying the research-implementation gap in conservation paleobiology

“…Paywalls or subscriptions imposed by journals further limit conservation practitioners' access to peer-reviewed literature (Fuller et al, 2014). In addition, academic researchers often lack the training to develop skills necessary to collaborate across disciplinary boundaries (Arlettaz et al, 2010;Kelley et al, 2019;Merkle et al, 2019;Kelley and Dietl, 2022). The gap in conservation paleobiology likely stems from some combination of all these factors and others.…”

Reenvisioning the university education needs of wildlife conservation professionals in the United States

“…The broad impetus for our paper stems from needing to consider the role of university education programs in how the wildlife profession can adapt to rapidly changing conditions. While calls for improved training of conservation professionals abound in recent literature (e.g., Blickley et al, 2013; Kelley et al, 2019; Muir & Schwartz, 2009; Schwartz et al, 2017), little attention has been given to wildlife degree programs specifically (but see Kroll, 2007; Dayer & Mengak, 2020), particularly in terms of cultivating agency response to societal change. Key questions guiding our approach include the following: (1) As wildlife agencies confront the need to broaden their relevance to the diversity of public interests in a changing society, how can university programs better prepare future wildlife professionals?…”

Better together: Building an engaged conservation paleobiology science for the future

“…The demand for researchers who are prepared to engage in co‐production research is expected to grow as the complexity and urgency of the environmental problems society faces continue to escalate in coming years (Schwartz et al, 2017). Despite a recognition of this need, academic training in conservation paleobiology often falls short of teaching practical skills to engage with conservation practitioners and other stakeholders (Conservation Paleobiology Workshop, 2012; Kelley et al, 2018, 2019; Savarese, 2018). Harnessing the power of knowledge co‐production in conservation paleobiology, therefore, will require a cultural shift in the field's values, norms, priorities and practices.…”