Pro: Scientists Can Be Scientists, and Advocates Too!

The realm of conservation biology has been rocked by the controversy surrounding scientific advocacy. Many people argue that scientists cannot be both scientists and advocates at the same time. They claim that advocacy runs counter to the objectivity of science, and that it damages the credibility of the scientist and for science as a whole. They believe that scientists should be removed from advocacy and only take on a minimal role as providers of information and data and nothing else so as to not invalidate the data in any way. This argument falls apart though when you look at the framework of conservation biology, and at science in a broader view.

The idea that science is solely objective is not as true as we set it up to be. From the beginning, a researcher invests a level in interest and thought as to what they wish to research and present. This research is of their own choosing and often takes years of dedication and funding. This is the very first value-judgement made and it is not wrong for people to make. There is not that great of a divide between values and science as people think there is (Noss 2007). Everything has an inherent level of value and this type of thought also supports the whole of conservation biology.

Conservation biology is made up of value judgements.

Image from http://beforeitsnews.com/environment/2010/09/cartoon-guide-to-biodiversity-loss-ix-181208.html

While pointed and ironic in nature, this cartoon is an excellent illustration of what conservation biology does. The goal of conservation biology is to preserve those species that are worthy of preservation in order to prevent them from dying out. And as such, some species are held in higher priority over other species. Value-judgements are made in order to determine which species should be saved, and what kinds of policies should be enacted in order to do so. What some people would call subjectivity is actually fueled by a very objective view of data and results. These results do not change no matter what else is being said. Science cannot be in any way changed because there is advocacy joining it. What damages science’s credibility is not advocacy, but the bad science behind some of the more ridiculous positions that some scientists have taken in the past (Nelson, et. al 2008).

Barring scientists from advocacy removes a very important part of what makes up policies concerned with preserving biodiversity. As a scientist, they come to conclusions with the objective data they find and apply this information in practice. This includes making recommendations in policy decisions, and even pushing for these policies as a scientific advocate, using their knowledge and their position to further conserve what needs to be protected and prevent this:

Image from http://conservationbytes.com/2011/08/17/cartoon-guide-to-biodiversity-loss-xiii/

Sources:

Nelson, M. P., & Vucetich, J. A. (2009). On Advocacy by Environmental Scientists: What, Whether, Why, and How. Conservation Biology, 23(5), 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01250.x.

Noss, R. F. (2007). Values Are a Good Thing in Conservation Biology. Conservation Biology, 21(1), 18-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00637.x.

Pro: The Distillers of Truth

The phrase “ivory tower” often accompanies discussions of the social impacts of science as reference to the inaccessibility and isolation of the scientific community in relation with the general public. The technical jargon and expertise necessary to understand the content of many scientific journals is a blockade that requires exposure and dedication in order to surpass. That being said, the implications of certain studies (especially those that involve public and environmental health) have the potential to affect or address public wellbeing. If the sources of funding for these salient research topics includes taxpayer dollars, it is tantamount that the findings receive a fair representation in the arena of policy formation. It is foolish to think that the findings will passively find their way to offices of individuals with the power to implement plans that take them into consideration. This should be an active process that requires advocates that can speak to the relevance of the findings of particular studies. Scientists often develop particular foci in their work leading to specialization in a specific subset of their larger field. This could be justification for why scientists should not be the individuals advocating for their research since their training is, in fact, too focused. In addition, scientists often do not receive formal training in communicating scientific messages to the public or in translating science into policy and there are obvious time limitations to being able to both conduct in-depth research and advocate for related policy initiatives (Nelson 2009). That being said, scientists themselves are the most connected with the findings and are the best individuals available to isolate the most compelling data from their research and suggest policy measures in cases where direct action is needed. Even if this means the use of a middle-person to do the bulk of the advocating, scientists should feel compelled to fulfill a social contract of sharing the findings from research that involves the public interest (even when the public may not understand or appreciate the research) which includes collaboration with fellow researchers and experts in the affected areas (Carr 2013). Scientists are a subset of community residents who possess the ability to express their concerns to relevant legislative bodies, but ultimately, this is a personal and contextualized decision.

Nelson, M. P., & Vucetich, J. A. (2009). On Advocacy by Environmental Scientists: What, Whether, Why, and How. Conservation Biology, 23(5), 1090-1101. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01250.x

Carr, J. (2013). Researchers Take on a New Role: Advocate for Profession, Science. Bioscience, 63(1), 12. doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.1.4

The Great Debate(Pro): Should Scientists Be Advocates?

A heated conversation, to be sure, was held between the GIS course and Landscape Genetics and Conservation Course. Should scientists act as advocates? Or does advocacy undermine the objectivity that is seen as an essential component of science?

http://popperfont.net/2012/10/10/science-advocate-versus-scientist-and-i-suspect-most-science-communicators-too-scie113/

First off, I would like to address that all that is to follow in this post is completely my own opinion. You don't have to agree with it, but I do ask that you respect it. To begin my argument, I would like to initiate this dialogue (well, monologue I suppose, internet) by stating my opinion that there is no such thing as objectivity. It is impossible for any human being (any sentient being, for that matter) to be objective given that the thoughts, motives, morals, and your overall character is informed by your upbringing and the culture that you are surrounded by. This is to say that while science may be based on the facts, data, and the scientific method, this information will mean a slightly different thing to every scientist who interprets these details even if they have been in the same class and instructed by the same educators since pre-school.

That being said, I think that it is a moral obligation of scientists to share their knowledge with the public. In an ideal world, each and every citizen of the planet would be able to interpret scientific articles heavy on data table, charts, and formulas on their own and evaluate methods with a critical mind. This, however, is not the reality. The reality is that many science journals are only read, appreciated, and understood by scientists who are literate in the theory, practice, and nuanced art that is science. Given that much of science is conducted with public money it is the responsibility of those doing the research to share their unbiased, factual information, but to also explain it in layman's terms. It is one thing to generate facts, but it is another entirely to be able to understand what science means. Just by opening access to science publications and saying that they are available for the public would not mean that the public would be able to interpret the information.

The love of science and research comes from learning about an issue or a need to learn more about something. How are we going to inspire new scientists to conduct research if there is no passion to explore, protect, and discover more about the world around us? In order to understand cause and effect of scientific research we need scientists who understand their findings the best (and who have followed all steps of the scientific method including thorough peer review) to inform the public of how these findings impact their day to day lives. If scientists did not advocate for clean air and clean water we would still be able to set our rivers on fire. To learn more about one of my personal heroes (and the most brilliantly intelligent scientist that I know), click on this link to read about Neil Carman- former scientific consultant for the EPA turned public advocate in the face of inaction.

In summary, we need to make sure that regardless of where funding comes from that scientists are able to advocate for the good of the planet and all of its inhabitants. We don't need more scientists being prevented from telling the people that industry is not looking out for their interest as happened in the mid 20th century with cigarettes companies paying scientists to lie and firing those who didn't. In order to protect our planetary health, scientists must be allowed to make recommendations in public forums to the people, for policy, and for further research. If scientists do not advocate for their findings then who will protect our planet from imminent degradation?

___________________________
Works consulted:


Karr, James. (2006) When Government Ignores Science, Scientists Should Speak Up. BioScience. Vol. 56, No. 4 (April 2006), pp. 287-288