Is conservation hopeless?

Is conservation hopeless? I do not mean “will conservation efforts ultimately fail?” but “do conservation biologists perform their work without hope that it will make a difference?” A recent article in Bioscience (Volume 60, pages 626-630) argues that yes, researchers in conservation all too often function with a pessimistic outlook. The article points out that “A society that is habituated to the urgency of environmental destruction by a constant stream of dire messages from scientists and the media will require bigger and bigger hits of catastrophe to be spurred to action, and ultimately will give up hope that anything can be done.”

This notion of too much doom and gloom has been presented before, but this paper also suggests concrete solutions. I thought the most striking was the suggestion that conservation-oriented journals request that submitted articles possess, in addition to the usual concluding section on management implications, a section on hope. This section would focus on how the study offers hope for a better future.

Another interesting aspect of the paper was the implicit assumption that researchers studying conservation-related issues should be advocates for change. Some would argue that researchers should remain as objective as possible to avoid potential bias in their work. Many elements of science are inherently subjective, but it is not a settled matter that conservation biologists are advocates – that is worthy of debate as well.

On a different note, I recently got out pheasant hunting in Minnesota – beautiful autumn! – and snow has started to fly in Laramie. Ski season is not too far away.

READING

Swaisgood, Sheppard. 2010. The culture of conservation biologists: show me the hope! Bioscience 60:626-630.