Is the “academic conservation scientist” becoming an endangered species?

Abstract

Many conservation scientists are based in higher education institutions, but increasingly academia does not value factors important to conservation work when considering the promotion and tenure of its faculty. There is pressure in academia to publish in academic journals (especially high impact factor journals; conservation journals typically have an impact factor of < 4), but these typically have few readers and generally do not include those who need the information (e.g., conservation practitioners, managers, policymakers). Academic promotion is often dependent on bringing money into the university, i.e., gaining grants, with a high proportion of the grant overhead going to the institution, whereas conservation grants are typically small, with little to spare for overhead. In the USA, R1 universities are even worse because their status depends upon federal funds; however, much of conservation-related research is funded by NGOs and foundations. Little credit is given for receiving such grants. Furthermore, little to no credit is given by academic institutions for important conservation activities that do not have a dollar value, such as helping to establish protected areas, pass protective laws, or enact regulations; conducting public outreach; advising managers and policymakers; or aiding conservation capacity building. It is unlikely that an academic institution would grant tenure to faculty whose primary achievements contributed to saving a species or ecosystem. Academic institutions must learn to value the practical, real-world impacts of conservation scientists or the “academic conservation scientist” might become an endangered species. Some suggestions are offered to help stave off this extinction.