Abstract
In response to unexpected election results across the world, and a perceived increase of policy decisions that disregard scientific evidence, conservation scientists are reflecting on working in a ‘post-truth’ world. This phrase is useful in making scientists aware that policy-making is messy and multi-faceted, but it may be misused. By introducing three different scenarios of conservation decision-making, this perspective argues that a mythical era of ‘science or truth conservation’ has never existed. Since an ‘extended peer community’ of decision-makers (policy-makers, practitioners, stakeholders) are present in multi-layered governance structures, conservation has always been ‘post-normal’. To decrease the chances of ‘post-truth’ decision-making occurring, the perspective encourages scientists to think carefully about scientific workflows and science communication. Developing a conservation narrative which does not see values, beliefs, and interests, as key parts of modern functioning democracies risks upholding a perception of the disconnected ivory tower of science. Rather, co-productive relationships should be established with decision-makers, and we should harness the power of storytelling to engage people on a personal level. This perspective encourages scientists to take heed of research on stakeholder engagement and storytelling, and to embrace workflows suited to post-normal conservation, rather than trying to deny that a post-normal world exists.
Highlights
Conservation scientists, alongside the wider scientific community, have reacted with dismay to the rise of a so-called ‘post-truth’ politics (e.g. Tollefson et al 2016; Hayhoe in Gewin2017; Wilsdon 2017)
In the aftermath of unexpected election results in the UK and USA, and threats to pull out of international environmental agreements, the science community has struggled with a decision-making environment that seems to undervalue the importance of scientific evidence
At the British Ecological Society Annual Meeting in December 2016, a conference attended by 1200 ecologists from fifty countries, the phrase ‘post-truth’ was repeated so frequently that one delegate added it to a ‘plenary bingo-card’ as a key theme of note
Summary
Conservation scientists, alongside the wider scientific community, have reacted with dismay to the rise of a so-called ‘post-truth’ politics One might consider recent political events to have shifted policy-making closer to a ‘post-truth’ phase i (Scenario 3), studies in policy analysis have shown that science has had profound impacts on decision-making over long timescales, even if it appears to be seldom influential (Owens 2015). In accepting the reality that scientific evidence has always rightly been considered alongside other factors, the quality of science communication may be improved. By deploying scientific evidence in a persuasive way alongside other factors, it may improve the chances of evidence-informed decision-making. This perspective encourages conservation scientists to take heed of existing advice about how to do this.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
