tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2475052634354383423.post8309300911943205993..comments2024-02-10T19:10:00.832+01:00Comments on Society for Conservation Biology Europe Section: Conservation by conservation scientists?Bege Jonssonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05285161907669574201noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2475052634354383423.post-83813862791151756872013-04-02T18:36:55.625+02:002013-04-02T18:36:55.625+02:00Quevedomario: "I keep questioning who's g...Quevedomario: "I keep questioning who's gonna do the biology needed in conservation while we become, at least partly, outreach people?"<br /><br />Really? This concerns me very little, for one practical reason and one philosophical/quasi-empirical one.<br /><br />The practical reason not to worry is that there is essentially no chance that all academic conservation biologists will decide to convert, even partially, to outreach. There is little chance that a majority will. But if many more do so, and indeed if doing so becomes a respected and rewarded and "normed" option for academic conservation biologists, we'll be that much the better for it, while effort remains in study at the same time. (Besides which, even if we all *partly* convert to outreach, there would still be a huge research infrastructure based on our lessened, but still present research efforts.)<br /><br />The second reason is that a lack of biological knowledge is incredibly rarely the issue for environmental problems. See Judith Layzer's textbook "The Environmental Case"; Jasanoff's work on science & technology studies, or this piece by <a href="http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss1/art2/" rel="nofollow">Hagerman et al.</a>: "historical research has shown that “scientific proof is rarely what is at stake in a contested environmental....issue.” And that in environmental policy, there is “no need to wait for proof, no need to demand it and no basis to expect it” (Oreskes 2004)."<br /><br />That seems like it can't be true, but Vatn and Bromley make a similar point about economic valuation in "Choices without prices without apologies": "Evidence would suggest that a great many "enlightened" choices concerning the environment have been taken in the absence of pricing. Early efforts at disease control through water purification in major urban centers of Europe and America certainly come to mind. Similarly, air pollution programs in these same cities did not await decisive evidence that the citizenry was prepared to pay an aggregate sum in excess of the anticipated "costs" imposed on those whose actions were to be modified. The dedication of large tracts of the American continent as public domain lands for the eternal enjoyment of all-regardless of their economic situation-is yet another reminder of the historical irrelevance of pricing and valuing of the sort that now seems de rigueur." I propose that what they say of pricing may be true of "more biology" more broadly. I would be particularly interested in empirical counter-evidence; of cases where lack of biological theory was the core problem (and <i>not</i> lack of use of existing biological data, or foreseeably inappropriate use of biological theory). While knowing an optimum reserve size is important, it is rare that knowing this number (or range of numbers) is what enables action, and it certainly seems the case that a lack of more sophisticated theoretical development (which itself would be provisional in every case, anyway) need not stop effective implementation and monitoring.<br /><br />And sorry to belabor it, but a very effective form of outreach is collaborative research & citizen science, which would arguably increase with a change in focus. Indeed, monitoring & adaptive management may be effective as outreach, coalition-building (which is necessary if we want to conserve anything or get any particular policy implemented!), *and* data collection upon which to build future theory.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2475052634354383423.post-8371628920259673562013-03-19T23:49:43.084+01:002013-03-19T23:49:43.084+01:00Thanks for posting thought-provoking stuff. I read...Thanks for posting thought-provoking stuff. I read similar arguments before, even at the past ECCB; wasn't it pretty much the motto of the meeting? <br /><br />Anyway, althouh I share quite a lot of the feeling, I keep questioning who's gonna do the biology needed in conservation while we become, at least partly, outreach people?<br /><br />Really not sure...Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2475052634354383423.post-935655478347949072013-03-19T01:03:32.192+01:002013-03-19T01:03:32.192+01:00Thank you, Irina. It indeed is truly an eye opener...Thank you, Irina. It indeed is truly an eye opener. I've been working with an NGO eventhough I haven't yet graduated from school (I'm still an undergraduate), and thankfully I've had the privilege to know how the NGO works to communicate the findings and eidences to the public, especially the local community (because that NGO believes that every conservation should start from the most basic level of community that engages with the object that is conserved).<br />Thanks again!Sheykahttp://www.twitter.com/sheykanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2475052634354383423.post-27998194144460711362013-03-18T19:41:12.268+01:002013-03-18T19:41:12.268+01:00An eye opener article, well done!!An eye opener article, well done!!Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02383262755649191779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2475052634354383423.post-44879497170524736302013-03-18T18:03:29.849+01:002013-03-18T18:03:29.849+01:00Brilliant reflexion Irina! Congratulations for put...Brilliant reflexion Irina! Congratulations for putting on the paper so nicely and clear what is probably the "eternal" discussion among conservation biologists, and which keeps us penduling between the two positionsNuria Selvahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15788576320198536671noreply@blogger.com