Defending scientific integrity in conservation policy processes: lessons from Canada, Australia, and the United States

Society for Conservation Biology North America, Madison, Wisconsin, United States
Center for Biological Diversity, Washington, District of Columbia, United States
Union of Concerned Scientists, Washington, District of Columbia, United States
Lewis and Clark College, Portland, Oregon, United States
Nelson Institute for Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, United States
Department of Biology, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Centre for Integrative Ecology, Deakin University, Burwood, Australia
Centre for Ecosystem Science, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Evidence for Democracy, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Centre for Biodiversity and Conservation Science, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
DOI
10.7287/peerj.preprints.2946v1
Subject Areas
Conservation Biology, Science Policy
Keywords
scientific integrity, endangered species act, scientific advocacy, science communication, external peer review
Copyright
© 2017 Carroll et al.
Licence
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ Preprints) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
Cite this article
Carroll C, Hartl B, Goldman GT, Rohlf DJ, Treves A, Kerr JT, Ritchie EG, Kingsford RT, Gibbs KE, Maron M, Watson JEM. 2017. Defending scientific integrity in conservation policy processes: lessons from Canada, Australia, and the United States. PeerJ Preprints 5:e2946v1

Abstract

Government agencies faced with politically controversial decisions often discount or ignore scientific information, whether from agency staff or non-governmental 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 is followed by 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 that are publicly hostile to evidence-based policy. We compare 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 communication from government scientists to public, we suggest that 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 non-governmental scientists (e.g., submitted comments or formal policy reviews) informs the policy process, we suggest that governments broaden the scope of independent reviews, ensure greater diversity of expert input with transparency regarding conflicts of interest, require substantive response to input from agencies, and engage proactively with scientific societies. For their part, scientists and scientific societies have a civic responsibility to engage with the wider public to affirm that science is a crucial resource for developing evidence-based policy and regulations that are in the public interest.

Author Comment

This manuscript is currently undergoing peer review at a scientific journal focused on conservation biology research. We are posting a pre-print due to the relevance of this topic to the March for Science and related current efforts to promote scientific integrity.