| ..... |
A scientist's job is to create new knowledge. Thus it is not surprising that scientists
are most interested in their own research. Scientists use many methods to raise
funds to support their research agendas and build their reputations. Scientists
collect information, publish their results, and seek out new opportunities. Because
science is a tool that can be used for conservation, scientists often seek donations
from conservation organizations to support their research projects.
Conservation requires mitigating threats to species. Conservationists use all the
information available, including scientific information provided by scientists, to
mitigate threats. The information provided by scientists is often used by
conservationists. The problem arises when science hijacks conservation funding.
One insidious problem being inflicted on conservation is the diversion of conservation
funding into the hands of scientists who use the plight of threatened species to
support their research projects that do not have any conservation impact.
The phrases “little is known about this species,” “what we discover can be used for
conservation purposes,” or “what we discover will directly influence management
actions” are frequently used in proposals soliciting funding. These vaguely worded
phrases often translate to “we hope that maybe someone someday makes use of this
information for conservation purposes.” The word conservation appears in the
abstract of the solicitation and that is the last time it appears.
In summary, there is a diversion of conservation funding going into science projects
that have little conservation impact because there is no way to mitigate threats to
the species that was used to secure the funding. This diversion of precious
conservation funding must stop. When the name of a threatened species is used to
raise funds for a science project, it is incumbent on donor agencies to ask themselves
how the new knowledge will actually mitigate threats to the threatened species. This
usually means that someone working in situ to mitigate threats can put this
knowledge to good us. In many case, there is no such in situ effort.
There is no question that good conservation depends, at least in part, on good
science. The production of new knowledge is a good thing. But let’s make sure the
new knowledge gained by scientists and paid for by conservation funding can be
implemented to mitigate threats to the very species that was used to secure the
funding.
are most interested in their own research. Scientists use many methods to raise
funds to support their research agendas and build their reputations. Scientists
collect information, publish their results, and seek out new opportunities. Because
science is a tool that can be used for conservation, scientists often seek donations
from conservation organizations to support their research projects.
Conservation requires mitigating threats to species. Conservationists use all the
information available, including scientific information provided by scientists, to
mitigate threats. The information provided by scientists is often used by
conservationists. The problem arises when science hijacks conservation funding.
One insidious problem being inflicted on conservation is the diversion of conservation
funding into the hands of scientists who use the plight of threatened species to
support their research projects that do not have any conservation impact.
The phrases “little is known about this species,” “what we discover can be used for
conservation purposes,” or “what we discover will directly influence management
actions” are frequently used in proposals soliciting funding. These vaguely worded
phrases often translate to “we hope that maybe someone someday makes use of this
information for conservation purposes.” The word conservation appears in the
abstract of the solicitation and that is the last time it appears.
In summary, there is a diversion of conservation funding going into science projects
that have little conservation impact because there is no way to mitigate threats to
the species that was used to secure the funding. This diversion of precious
conservation funding must stop. When the name of a threatened species is used to
raise funds for a science project, it is incumbent on donor agencies to ask themselves
how the new knowledge will actually mitigate threats to the threatened species. This
usually means that someone working in situ to mitigate threats can put this
knowledge to good us. In many case, there is no such in situ effort.
There is no question that good conservation depends, at least in part, on good
science. The production of new knowledge is a good thing. But let’s make sure the
new knowledge gained by scientists and paid for by conservation funding can be
implemented to mitigate threats to the very species that was used to secure the
funding.
| Science and conservation: what's the difference? |
When science hijacks conservation funding
| Small Cat Conservation Alliance |