Literature DB >> 28741747

Defending the scientific integrity of conservation-policy processes.

Carlos Carroll1,2, Brett Hartl3, Gretchen T Goldman4, Daniel J Rohlf5, Adrian Treves6, Jeremy T Kerr7, Euan G Ritchie8, Richard T Kingsford9, Katherine E Gibbs10, Martine Maron11, James E M Watson11.   

Abstract

Government agencies faced with politically controversial decisions often discount or ignore scientific information, whether from agency staff or nongovernmental scientists. Recent developments in scientific integrity (the ability to perform, use, communicate, and publish science free from censorship or political interference) in Canada, Australia, and the United States demonstrate a similar trajectory. A perceived increase in scientific-integrity abuses provokes concerted pressure by the scientific community, leading to efforts to improve scientific-integrity protections under a new administration. However, protections are often inconsistently applied and are at risk of reversal under administrations publicly hostile to evidence-based policy. We compared recent challenges to scientific integrity to determine what aspects of scientific input into conservation policy are most at risk of political distortion and what can be done to strengthen safeguards against such abuses. To ensure the integrity of outbound communications from government scientists to the public, we suggest governments strengthen scientific integrity policies, include scientists' right to speak freely in collective-bargaining agreements, guarantee public access to scientific information, and strengthen agency culture supporting scientific integrity. To ensure the transparency and integrity with which information from nongovernmental scientists (e.g., submitted comments or formal policy reviews) informs the policy process, we suggest governments broaden the scope of independent reviews, ensure greater diversity of expert input and transparency regarding conflicts of interest, require a substantive response to input from agencies, and engage proactively with scientific societies. For their part, scientists and scientific societies have a responsibility to engage with the public to affirm that science is a crucial resource for developing evidence-based policy and regulations in the public interest.
© 2017 The Authors. Conservation Biology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of Society for Conservation Biology.

Keywords:  ciencia; comunicación; defensa científica; endangered species act; external peer review; ley de especies en peligro; revisión de colegas externos; science communication; scientific advocacy

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28741747     DOI: 10.1111/cobi.12958

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


  5 in total

1.  From a variety of ethics to the integrity and congruence of research on biodiversity conservation.

Authors:  Claire Lajaunie
Journal:  Asian Bioeth Rev       Date:  2018-12-27

2.  On the difficulties of being rigorous in environmental geochemistry studies: some recommendations for designing an impactful paper.

Authors:  Olivier Pourret; Jean-Claude Bollinger; Eric D van Hullebusch
Journal:  Environ Sci Pollut Res Int       Date:  2019-11-19       Impact factor: 4.223

3.  Hallmarks of science missing from North American wildlife management.

Authors:  Kyle A Artelle; John D Reynolds; Adrian Treves; Jessica C Walsh; Paul C Paquet; Chris T Darimont
Journal:  Sci Adv       Date:  2018-03-07       Impact factor: 14.136

4.  Perceived losses of scientific integrity under the Trump administration: A survey of federal scientists.

Authors:  Gretchen T Goldman; Jacob M Carter; Yun Wang; Janice M Larson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-04-23       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Wolf Delisting Challenges Demonstrate Need for an Improved Framework for Conserving Intraspecific Variation under the Endangered Species Act.

Authors:  Carlos Carroll; Daniel J Rohlf; Bridgett M vonHoldt; Adrian Treves; Sarah A Hendricks
Journal:  Bioscience       Date:  2020-10-29       Impact factor: 8.589

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.