Thomas D. Nudds

Scientific Advocacy: Confronting the Oxymoron

Scientists are often caught between their desire to take a stand in ecological debates and an equally strong urge to better understand the problem at hand. Noss (1989, 1994) argues that scientists have a professional responsibility to provide advice on policy issues, and that failing to advocate changes to current environmental policy when such changes are required based on science is akin to advocating status quo. Others argue that scientists who are involved in advocacy undermine their credibility and that of their discipline, because it polarizes debates and increases confrontation instead of achieving the partnerships required to address conservation issues (e.g., Brussard et al. 1994, Baskerville 1997). Advocacy may also affect the way scientists frame research questions or design studies. This, in turn, may yield weak scientific evidence, which is worthless in environmental debates (Wiens 1997).

Basic Science, Applied Science, and the Radical Middle Ground

So exclaimed Louis Pasteur—French chemist, biologist, and bacteriologist—in a speech delivered in1872. He was continuing on a theme begun at least a year earlier, when he wrote, in Revue scientifique: “There does not exist a category of science to which one can give the name applied science. There are science and the applications of science, bound together as the fruit of the tree that bears it” (Pasteur 1871).

Clubs, Carrots, and Conservation

Despite increasing awareness of the impact of humans on ecosystems, many organisms are killed incidentally by activities that may potentially affect vital rates of populations. With regard to songbirds, examples include nest destruction by agricultural practices and timber harvest operations during summer. Just as commercial fishing bycatch may significantly alter oceanic food webs (Myers and Worm 2005), “incidental take” of birds by these or other activities, such as collisions with vertical structures or predation by domestic animals, might have significant cumulative effects on certain species or ecosystems. While the apparent effects of such activities typically loom larger in the public mind than habitat destruction or pesticide use during the nonbreeding season, scientific assessments are nevertheless required to determine whether, why, and to what extent their effects actually are harmful.

Making the most of science during the new environmental fervor

Sustained international discussions on greenhouse gas emissions and their reduction also indicate the increasing appreciation of decision makers for environmental issues. However, there remains a surprising degree of ignorance about environmental science. For example, in spite of scientific evidence for a long-term increase in atmospheric CO2 and its link to global climate change, many countries argue to postpone action. Whether scientific ignorance or short-term political vision are at play, it is troubling to see how little influence science apparently has on some decision makers when, as in the case of greenhouse gas emissions, the weight of evidence after many years favors the notion that action would be the prudent course. At the other extreme, whistleblowers are sometimes a little too anxious. Take, for example, a news item shown on Radio-Canada Television entitled “Fewer birds.” The reporter interviewed naturalists involved in a recently completed Christmas Bird Count. Results revealed a stable number of species relative to previous years, but a 30% decline in abundance. A variety of causes were listed to explain the decline, from excessive logging of certain tree species to weather conditions during the previous nesting season, or even longerterm changes in climate. Professional ornithologists or ecologists were not interviewed.

Two Years In: Revisiting the Publication Niche for Avian Conservation and Ecology

ACE-ECO seeks to publish manuscripts that simultaneously advance basic ecology and address matters of conservation concern, within the context of rigorous research hypothesis testing (more on this below). The decision to exploit a relatively specialized niche may be viewed as risky for a new journal, but we are convinced that it will pay off as researchers become familiar with what we are attempting to accomplish; and they may appreciate that the scope of the journal is not so narrow as might be supposed. An increased submission rate of acceptable papers is perhaps a good sign that we have “turned the corner”. We hope that the trend will be sustained.

On Evidence of Absence

When ACE-ECO received the submission by Hill et al., Evidence suggesting that Ivory-billed Woodpeckers (Campephilus principalis) exist in Florida, we faced a challenge. The Arkansas case is widely familiar (Fitzpatrick et al. 2005, Walters and Crist 2005, Fitzpatrick et al. 2006, Jackson 2006, Sibley et al. 2006) and highly politicized. One does not need to be a member of the ornithological community to appreciate that there might be further controversy generated by news of more putative observations of Ivory-billed Woodpeckers in Florida.