Volume 115, October 2015, Pages 71–76
Making Marine Science Matter: Issues and Solutions from the 3rd International Marine Conservation Congress
Open Access
Highlights
- •
- There a high degree of science illiteracy among policy-makers (particularly in the US) and scientists urgently need to engage in the policy process.
- •
- Few scientists are truly independent and perceptions of conflicts of interest are inevitable when engaging in the policy process and these are to be accepted and mitigated and not ignored.
- •
- Scientists engaging in policy should be precautionary; be wary of statements being taken out of context; not get defensive when disagreement occurs; and be wary that caveats will be ignored and arguments oversimplified.
- •
- Scientists should actively correct misrepresentations of science and develop their communication skills to ensure clear, concise advice.
- •
- To encourage scientist engagement in the policy process, evaluation of faculty and researchers should give credit for work that has “real world” policy/regulatory impact.
Abstract
There
is often a basic tension at the boundary between science and policy –
the former seeks unbiased, objective descriptions of reality, while the
latter must incorporate various factors in its development, including
values, ideologies, economics, biases, and emotions. Problems may arise
if, and when, marine scientists who enter the policy arena fail to
understand these differing priorities, and we describe some common
pitfalls. Various strategies are presented for marine conservation
scientists to consider in order to avoid or minimize misunderstandings,
especially with the media. Conflict of interest issues and public
perception of bias are also addressed, as is misuse of research results
and whether scientists have an obligation to correct misrepresentation
of their research. Finally, we consider how marine scientists should
address the inherent uncertainty in their results when those results are
used to develop policy, including the importance of incorporating the
Precautionary Principle when making science-based policy.
Keywords
- Marine conservation;
- Policy;
- Advocacy;
- Advice;
- Policy engagement;
- Precautionary principle
1. Introduction
Conservation scientists have long debated whether they should advocate for their science (Lackey, 2007, Noss, 2007, Chan, 2008, Nelson and Vucetich, 2009 and Parsons, 2013),
but in recent years attitudes have changed. The need for marine
conservation scientists and their professional societies to become more
engaged with managers and policy-makers is now generally recognized.
However, policy is politics and politics is people. This means that when
governments determine conservation policy, values, ideologies,
economics, biases, and emotions are all factors to consider in the
decision-making, with varying degrees of relevance depending on the
issue. Politics and policy-makers often (usually) have a different
agenda from that of science, which seeks unbiased, objective
descriptions of reality. Any marine scientist who chooses to get
involved in policy needs to understand this fundamental difference from
the outset or problems will ensue. While we encourage more marine
scientists to become involved in advocating for science-based policy
decisions (see Parsons, 2013), here we offer a summary of the pitfalls that the unprepared may encounter when entering the policy arena.
2. Marine scientists engaging in policy
“Back off, man, I'm a scientist.” Bill Murray as Dr. Peter Venkman in the film Ghostbusters
