Value and Advocacy in Conservation Biology: Crisis Discipline or Discipline in Crisis?

Conservation biology is fraught with confusion and controversy about advocacy. Until we resolve the confusion over how we should advocate, controversy will prevail over whether we should advocate. Until then conservation biologists are likely to avoid even directing their expertise to policy decisions, even though many authors agree we are obliged to do this. No stance on advocacy can avoid criticism, but are all stances equally defensible? At stake is the very meaning of conservation biology: according to “objective scientists,” we should give up our commitment to the inherent value of biodiversity, and stop using terms such as degradation, good, and healthy (Lackey 2007). According to “scientist advocates,” we are obligated to step well beyond research and even recommend particular solutions to policy goals (Noss 2007). The debate is enriched by the distinction between advocacy for conservation values and for conservation trade-offs. This crucial distinction has been blurred on both sides. Objective scientists argue that asserting a value is advocating a policy, which should be eschewed (Lackey 2007). And scientist advocates argue that everyone has values, so who better to recommend policy than those closest to the facts (Noss 2007)? Both sides make good points, but both gloss over the critical difference between values and tradeoffs. Here I address all scientists who use natural and social sciences to advance the protection of biodiversity, including those in universities, government, NGOs, and other institutions.