Literature DB >> 22280324

Inadvertent advocacy.

George F Wilhere1.   

Abstract

Policy advocacy is an issue regularly debated among conservation scientists. These debates have focused on intentional policy advocacy by scientists, but advocacy can also be unintentional. I define inadvertent policy advocacy as the act of unintentionally expressing personal policy preferences or ethical judgments in a way that is nearly indistinguishable from scientific judgments. A scientist may be well intentioned and intellectually honest but still inadvertently engage in policy advocacy. There are two ways to inadvertently engage in policy advocacy. First, a scientist expresses an opinion that she or he believes is a scientific judgment but it is actually an ethical judgment or personal policy preference. Second, a scientist expresses an opinion that he or she knows is an ethical judgment or personal policy preference but inadvertently fails to effectively communicate the nature of the opinion to policy makers or the public. I illustrate inadvertent advocacy with three examples: recovery criteria in recovery plans for species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, a scientific peer review of a recovery plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), and the International Union for Conservation of Nature's definition of threatened. In each example, scientists expressed ethical judgments or policy preferences, but their value judgments were not identified as such, and, hence, their value judgments were opaque to policy makers and the public. Circumstances suggest their advocacy was inadvertent. I believe conservation scientists must become acutely aware of the line between science and policy and avoid inadvertent policy advocacy because it is professional negligence, erodes trust in scientists and science, and perpetuates an ethical vacuum that undermines the rational political discourse necessary for the evolution of society's values. The principal remedy for inadvertent advocacy is education of conservation scientists in an effort to help them understand how science and values interact to fulfill the mission of conservation science. ©2011 Society for Conservation Biology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22280324     DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01805.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Conserv Biol        ISSN: 0888-8892            Impact factor:   6.560


  4 in total

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

Authors:  Emilie Crouzat; Isabelle Arpin; Lucas Brunet; Matthew J Colloff; Francis Turkelboom; Sandra Lavorel
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2017-09-14       Impact factor: 5.129

2.  Guidance on the Use of Best Available Science under the U.S. Endangered Species Act.

Authors:  Dennis D Murphy; Paul S Weiland
Journal:  Environ Manage       Date:  2016-04-16       Impact factor: 3.266

Review 3.  Credibility and advocacy in conservation science.

Authors:  Cristi C Horton; Tarla Rai Peterson; Paulami Banerjee; Markus J Peterson
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2015-08-28       Impact factor: 6.560

Review 4.  Hunting down the chimera of multiple disciplinarity in conservation science.

Authors:  Simon P Pooley; J Andrew Mendelsohn; E J Milner-Gulland
Journal:  Conserv Biol       Date:  2013-12-02       Impact factor: 6.560

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.