Misuse of Scientific Data in Wolf Policy

Abstract

The recent launch of an International Platform for Biodiversity Scientists and policy-makers (IPBES) has raised hopes that a deeper consideration of scientific knowledge will lead to more efficient biodiversity conservation policies ([ 1 ][1]). However, this link is not systematic; the case of wolf conservation in Sweden reinforces concerns that scientific data can be misapplied to real-world problems. Wolves in Sweden have been naturally recovering from near-extinction for the past three decades. All 250 wolves in Sweden descend from only 5 founders, and reducing the inbreeding coefficient has become the main policy target ([ 2 ][2]). However, the wolf recovery is controversial, and vocal interest groups have been calling to reduce population size because of negative impacts on hunting and farming. ![Figure][3] CREDIT: JON M. ARNEMO Under pressure from these groups, Swedish authorities recently opened a wolf hunt, which selectively targets the most inbred wolves. This hunt is presented as a conservation action under the reasoning that removing some of the most inbred wolves is “the only measure in the short term that can reduce inbreeding” ([ 2 ][2]) and thus a step toward the species being able to maintain itself on a long-term basis, known as “Favorable Conservation Status” under binding EU legislation. Unfortunately, this is just one example of how scientific results can be misinterpreted to justify a particular policy by ignoring the broader scientific context. In fact, only immigration will lead to a lasting reduction of inbreeding ([ 3 ][4]), but plans to support immigration have either failed or remain very uncertain. If found lawful by a pending court case, this approach may have far-reaching consequences for biodiversity conservation in Europe, as it may legitimize the government's selective use of biodiversity science to spuriously justify biodiversity-damaging policies. To ensure that science is considered in context by policy-makers, scientists must provide more targeted warnings against the misuse of their results. 1. [↵][5]1. C. Perrings, 2. A. Duraiappah, 3. A. Larigauderie, 4. H. Mooney , Science 331, 1139 (2011); published online 17 February 2011. [OpenUrl][6][Abstract/FREE Full Text][7] 2. [↵][8]Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, “Decision on a selective and targeted hunt of wolves in 2013, NV-01007-13” (Naturvardsverket, Stockholm, 2013) [in Swedish]. 3. [↵][9]1. O. Liberg, 2. H. Sand , “Effects of migration and selective harvest for the genetic status of the Scandinavian wolf population: A report to the Swedish Environment Protection Agengy SEPA (Naturvardsverket)” (Grimso Wildlife Research Station, Riddarhyttan, Sweden, 2012). [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #ref-2 [3]: pending:yes [4]: #ref-3 [5]: #xref-ref-1-1 View reference 1 in text [6]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DScience%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1126%252Fscience.1202400%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F21330488%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [7]: /lookup/ijlink/YTozOntzOjQ6InBhdGgiO3M6MTQ6Ii9sb29rdXAvaWpsaW5rIjtzOjU6InF1ZXJ5IjthOjQ6e3M6ODoibGlua1R5cGUiO3M6NDoiQUJTVCI7czoxMToiam91cm5hbENvZGUiO3M6Mzoic2NpIjtzOjU6InJlc2lkIjtzOjEzOiIzMzEvNjAyMS8xMTM5IjtzOjQ6ImF0b20iO3M6MjU6Ii9zY2kvMzM5LzYxMjcvMTUyMS4xLmF0b20iO31zOjg6ImZyYWdtZW50IjtzOjA6IiI7fQ== [8]: #xref-ref-2-1 View reference 2 in text [9]: #xref-ref-3-1 View reference 3 in text