A fine dividing line

Abstract

One of the thorniest debates among ecologists is whether they should become involved in policy making and politics. As many Ecological Society of America (ESA) Presidents – most recently Sunny Power, at the 2009 ESA Annual Meeting – have noted, there has always been some tension between ESA members who believe ecologists should focus solely on their research and those who assert that they and their colleagues should engage in policy outreach, making ecological knowledge relevant to decision makers. As the famous saying goes, “You can't please all of the people all of the time”, and nowhere is this more apparent than when ESA steps forward to provide scientific information to policy makers on the environmental issues of the day. Whatever the topic, and whatever form this information takes (whether it's an ESA position statement or an editorial or columnist's piece in Frontiers), some members will argue that ESA isn't being bold enough, while others worry either that the Society is providing information they disagree with or that it has no business being involved in a particular issue in the first place. When Frontiers was launched, the decision was made to create something that would go beyond the recognized boundaries of a traditional scientific journal. The plan was to include high-quality, peer-reviewed papers, but authors would be encouraged to discuss the implications of their research for decision makers and resource managers in the Conclusions section of their papers. The “In a Nutshell” section was placed on the first page of every Review and Concepts & Questions article specifically so that non-scientific readers (eg time-pressed policy makers) could quickly and easily grasp the main points of the paper, and could then decide whether the information warranted further investigation. The journal would also feature editorial writers and columnists who could discuss topics (including controversial ones), and readers could argue about these issues in the letters section of the journal or on Ecolog-L, the Society's electronic discussion forum. As with the ESA as a whole, some members have occasionally been angered by a piece published in Frontiers, whereas others have accused us of being too cowardly to really dig in to sensitive topics, such as human population growth/immigration, economic policies, and other “hot button” issues. As we said, “you can't please…”. In the September 2008 issue of Frontiers, for example, Don Strong wrote a passionate editorial in defense of ecologists labeling themselves “environmentalists”, and, in so doing, touched a nerve among some readers. The greatest danger, as one member wrote in a letter to Write Back, was that policy makers would label ecologists as just another advocacy group and no longer respect or value the information they provided. So where is the dividing line between a professional scientific society and an advocacy group when it comes to providing ecological and environmental information? ESA is one of hundreds of organizations with a presence in Washington, DC. As a scientific society, what distinguishes it from advocacy organizations is that the Society works to inform decision makers, based on the ecological expertise of its 10 000 members. In contrast to advocacy organizations, ESA doesn't make the policy decisions in advance and then lobby policy makers to act accordingly. Instead, through congressional briefings, position statements, and one-on-one meetings, the Society lays out a menu of options – based on the best available science – for decision makers to consider. Over the past year, ESA has offered an ecological voice on issues ranging from a proposal to introduce the Asian oyster to the Chesapeake Bay, possible changes to the Endangered Species Act, and the teaching of evolution in state public schools. ESA members serving on the Society's Rapid Response Team (RRT) have pledged to “drop everything” and respond swiftly to requests for scientific input on pending legislation, contribute to amicus briefs to the Supreme Court, or come to DC and brief policy makers in person. Congressional staffers repeatedly express their appreciation to these members for their willingness to discuss the issues and address their questions. As ecological science and ESA continue to grow in relevance and visibility, not everyone will be happy with the Society's activities, as it offers the scientific knowledge and expertise of its members as a resource for national, regional, or local decision makers. And yet, for the Society to do nothing and say nothing would be to miss a tremendous opportunity to put ecological and environmental science to work in the policy arena, helping to make decisions that could have broad-ranging consequences for us all.