David Christian Rose

An analysis of orientation selectivity in the cat's visual cortex

SummaryThe responses of cells in the cats visual cortex to a moving bar of light have been analysed quantitatively, using an integration of the post-stimulus time histogram, with particular reference to orientation selectivity. The method is assessed as to its reliability and usefulness; it is shown that much precise information about a cell can be derived from its orientational tuning curve.Complex cells were found on average to show more spontaneous activity, greater response amplitude, and slightly broader orientational tuning, than either simple or hypercomplex cell types. Correlations between spontaneous and evoked activity and orientational selectivity give information as to the possible mechanisms of excitation and inhibition of the cells. The question of meridional variations in perception has been especially examined: the unexpected finding that many simple cells detecting orientations close to horizontal or vertical are very narrowly tuned, which is not the case for complex or hypercomplex cells, is discussed in relation to human psychophysical variations in orientation discrimination and contrast sensitivity.

The case for policy‐relevant conservation science

Drawing on the “evidence-based” (Sutherland et al. 2013) versus “evidence-informed” debate (Adams & Sandbrook 2013), which has become prominent in conservation science, I argue that science can be influential if it holds a dual reference (Lentsch & Weingart 2011) that contributes to the needs of policy makers whilst maintaining technical rigor. In line with such a strategy, conservation scientists are increasingly recognizing the usefulness of constructing narratives through which to enhance the influence of their evidence (Leslie et al. 2013; Lawton & Rudd 2014). Yet telling stories alone is rarely enough to influence policy; instead, these narratives must be policy relevant. To ensure that evidence is persuasive alongside other factors in a complex policy-making process, conservation scientists could follow 2 steps: reframe within salient political contexts and engage more productively in boundary work, which is defined as the ways in which scientists “construct, negotiate, and defend the boundary between science and policy” (Owens et al. 2006:640). These will both improve the chances of evidence-informed conservation policy. El Caso para la Ciencia de la Conservación con Relevancia Política Resumen A partir del debate “con base en evidencia” (Sutherland et al. 2013) versus “informado con evidencia” (Adams & Sandbrook 2013), debate que se ha vuelto prominente en la ciencia de la conservación, argumento que la ciencia puede ser influyente si mantiene una referencia dual (Lentsch & Weingart 2011) que contribuya a las necesidades de quienes hacen la política a la vez que mantiene un rigor técnico. En línea con dicha estrategia, los científicos de la conservación cada vez reconocen más la utilidad de construir narrativas con las cuales pueden mejorar la influencia de sus evidencias (Leslie et al. 2013; Lawton & Rudd 2014). Sin embargo, sólo contar historias rara vez es suficiente para influir sobre la política; en su lugar, estas narrativas deben ser políticamente relevantes. Para asegurar que la evidencia sea persuasiva junto con otros factores en un proceso complejo de fabricación de políticas, los científicos de la conservación pueden seguir dos pasos: rediseñar el marco de trabajo a partir de contextos políticos salientes y participar con mayor productividad en el trabajo fronterizo, que se define como los métodos con los cuales los científicos “construyen, negocian y defienden la frontera entre la ciencia y la política” (Owens et al. 2006:640). Estos pasos incrementarán la oportunidad de políticas de conservación informadas con evidencias.

Honest advocacy for nature: presenting a persuasive narrative for conservation

Conservation scientists are increasingly recognising the value of communicating policy-relevant knowledge to policy-makers. Whilst considerable progress has been made in offering practical advice for scientists seeking to engage more closely with decision-makers, researchers have provided few tangible examples to learn from. This paper uses an English case study, but draws out important high-level messages relevant to conservation scientists worldwide. The case study looks at how the Lawton Review presented knowledge persuasively about the suitability of England’s ecological network to deal with future pressures. Through skilful framing of rigorous scientific knowledge it was able to make a significant impact on government policy. Impact was achieved through: (1) selecting politically salient frames through which to communicate; (2) using clear, accessible language, and; (3) conducting rigorous science using an authoritative team of experts. Although its publication coincided with a favourable policy window, the Lawton Review seized on this opportunity to communicate a rigorously argued, persuasive and practical conservation message; in other words, it performed ‘honest advocacy’. Thus, whilst it remains important to conduct scientific research with technical rigour, conservation scientists could also benefit from identifying salient frames for conservation and communicating clearly.

Blueprints of Effective Biodiversity and Conservation Knowledge Products That Support Marine Policy

Biodiversity and conservation data are generally costly to collect, particularly in the marine realm. Hence, data collected for a given—often scientific—purpose are occasionally contributed towards secondary needs, such as policy implementation or other types of decision-making. However, while the quality and accessibility of marine biodiversity and conservation data have improved over the past decade, the ways in which these data can be used to develop and implement relevant management and conservation measures and actions are not always explicit. For this reason, there are a number of scientifically-sound datasets that are not used systematically to inform policy and decisions. Transforming these marine biodiversity and conservation datasets into knowledge products that convey the information required by policy- and decision-makers is an important step in strengthening knowledge exchange across the science-policy interface. Here, we identify seven characteristics of a selection of online biodiversity and conservation knowledge products that contribute to their ability to support policy- and decision-making in the marine realm (as measured by e.g. mentions in policy resolutions/decisions, or use for reporting under selected policy instruments; use in high-level screening for areas of biodiversity importance). These characteristics include: a clear policy mandate; established networks of collaborators; iterative co-design of a user-friendly interface; standardised, comprehensive and documented methods with quality assurance; consistent capacity and succession planning; accessible data and value-added products that are fit-for-purpose; and metrics of use collated and reported. The outcomes of this review are intended to: (a) support data creators/owners/providers in designing and curating biodiversity and conservation knowledge products that have greater influence, and hence impact, in policy- and decision-making, and (b) provide recommendations for how decision- and policy-makers can support the development, implementation, and sustainability of robust biodiversity and conservation knowledge products through the framing of marine policy and decision-making frameworks.

A methodological guide to using and reporting on interviews in conservation science research

Interviews are a widely used methodology in conservation research. They are flexible, allowing in-depth analysis from a relatively small sample size and place the focus of research on the views of participants. While interviews are a popular method, several critiques have been raised in response to their use, including the lack of transparency in sampling strategy, choice of questions and mode of analysis. In this paper, we analyse the use of interviews in research aimed at making decisions for conservation. Through a structured review of 227 papers, we explore where, why and how interviews were used in the context of conservation decision making The review suggests that interviews are a widely used method for a broad range of purposes. These include gaining ecological and/or socio-economic information on specific conservation issues, understanding knowledge, values, beliefs or decision-making processes of stakeholders, and strengthening research design and output. The review, however, identifies a number of concerns. Researchers are not reporting fully on their interview methodology. Specifically, results indicate that researchers are: failing to provide a rationale as to why interviews are the most suitable method, not piloting the interviews (thus questions may be poorly designed), not outlining ethical considerations, not providing clear guides to analysis and not critically reviewing their use of interviews. Based on the results of the review, we provide a detailed checklist aimed at conservation researchers who wish to use interviews in their research (whether experienced in using the methodology or not), and journal editors and reviewers to ensure the robustness of interview methodology use. © 2018 The Authors. Methods in Ecology and Evolution © 2018 British Ecological Society

Policy windows for the environment: Tips for improving the uptake of scientific knowledge

(1) EU’s Seventh Framework Programme within the EU Biodiversity Observation Network (No. 308454) (2) Post-doctoral fellowship from Fondation Wiener Anspach, Belgium and the Scriven fellowship, (3) Cambridge Earth System Science NERC DTP [NE/L002507/1], (4) Austrian Science Fund (FWF), (5) Arcadia.

Finding the right connection – what makes a successful decision support system?

Farmers require evidence‐based guidance to make optimal decisions, enabling them to reduce costs by increasing the efficiency of input use. We discuss how decision support systems could be improved and made more useful for the farmer.

The major barriers to evidence-informed conservation policy and possible solutions

Abstract Conservation policy decisions can suffer from a lack of evidence, hindering effective decision‐making. In nature conservation, studies investigating why policy is often not evidence‐informed have tended to focus on Western democracies, with relatively small samples. To understand global variation and challenges better, we established a global survey aimed at identifying top barriers and solutions to the use of conservation science in policy. This obtained the views of 758 people in policy, practice, and research positions from 68 countries across six languages. Here we show that, contrary to popular belief, there is agreement between groups about how to incorporate conservation science into policy, and there is thus room for optimism. Barriers related to the low priority of conservation were considered to be important, while mainstreaming conservation was proposed as a key solution. Therefore, priorities should focus on convincing the public of the importance of conservation as an issue, which will then influence policy‐makers to adopt pro‐environmental long‐term policies.

Collaborating with communities: co-production or co-assessment?

Conservation and development projects typically involve collaboration with local communities. It has been suggested that these collaborations should include the co-production of knowledge (e.g. Pohl et al., 2010; Wyborn, 2015; Nel et al., 2016), in which local communities work with researchers to produce new knowledge. Co-production is, however, expensive and we suggest here that co-assessment of existing knowledge is more cost-effective. We suggest the following three stages of using knowledge: collation, co-assessment, and then (rarely) co-production. We agree that other ways of knowing—including local, experience-based, and indigenous knowledges, as well as incorporating local values—have an important role in solving environmental problems (Collins & Evans, 2007; Sutherland et al., 2014), but we question whether it is effective to generate new knowledge with individual communities.

Lightning Rods, Earthquakes, and Regional Identities: Towards a Multi‐Scale Framework of Assessing Fracking Risk Perception

Abstract Hydraulic fracturing has provided a persistent, polarizing, and highly politicized source of controversy internationally and in numerous national contexts for just under a decade. This research uses hydraulic fracturing (i.e., fracking) operations in New Zealand as a vignette through which to understand the underlying causes of controversy and the appropriateness of attempts to address them. A multi‐method approach using interviews (n = 25), diagrammatic analysis, and newsprint media was applied to evidence two major findings. First, previous attempts to explain fracking controversy based on social constructivist theory lack a multi‐scalar approach to the assessment of factors that influence risk perceptions. It is found that risk perception surrounding fracking in New Zealand reflects intra‐scalar interactions between factors originating at the international, national, regional, and local scale. Second, there is a concerning absence of critique pertaining to the concept of “social license to operate” (SLO), which has been advocated both internationally and nationally as an appropriate form of stakeholder engagement. This article contributes to the SLO outcomes literature by establishing a need to consider multi‐scalar influences on risk perception when explaining diverse SLO outcomes in communities where fracking operations are prospective or already taking place.