Toward Further Internationalization

Changes

Can a conservation-oriented scientific society remain relevant in the 21st century?

As the science of conservation biology matures, its practitioners increasingly find themselves exploring new and unfamiliar terrain. Many of us who were trained in the traditional organismal or field sciences—botany, zoology, ecology, genetics, and the like—now find ourselves dabbling in various human dimensions, learning about economics or becoming minor policy wonks. We have conversations with professionals from fields we never imagined we would have reason to discuss, and we even enjoy it. In fact, what it means to be a conservation biologist is evolving rapidly and broadening; certainly there are more practitioners of conservation biology today working in the social sciences, for example, than there were 15 years ago, when this society was just beginning. This is a sign of a healthy, vibrant, and widely relevant science. There is an exciting effort now underway to forge a strong coalition among professionals that historically have not enjoyed much interaction. Conservation biology and veterinary and human medicine are in the process of joining forces under a common denominator: health, as broadly considered in an ecological context. This coalition has great potential to unite several important but to this point largely separate fields and to ignite a powerful new global awareness: that conservation of biodiversity and of healthy, functional ecosystems is necessary to the health of individuals and populations, human and otherwise. This promises to be an extremely rich and rewarding alliance. Earlier this year I was fortunate to be invited to a conference on conservation medicine, the intent of which was to bring together a diverse group of individuals from conservation biology, veterinary and human medicine, public health, and related fields to explore common ground and to promote development of the field of conservation medicine. The meeting was sponsored by the new Center for Conservation Medicine (CCM), a consortium of the Tufts University School of Veterinary Medicine, Wildlife Preservation Trust International, and Harvard Medical School's Center for Health and the Global Environment. The mission of the CCM is “… to advance biodiversity conservation and ecosystem health through interdisciplinary biomedical research and education; and to foster human and animal well-being by understanding the ecological context of health.” I believe that the CCM in general and this meeting in particular share an exciting goal: the melding of major and respected scientific fields for the mutual benefit of humanity, wild species, and natural ecosystems. I was surprised and pleased to learn that the attendees of this conference, most of whom specialize in human or animal medicine, were familiar with the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB), have great respect for the field, and are anxious to work with us in developing the field of conservation medicine. No salesmanship was necessary to convince others that conservation biologists have important perspectives to bring to the table and should be among the central players. I was impressed by the level and extent of knowledge of these medically oriented individuals of the concepts, data, and goals of conservation biology and by the enthusiasm they had for working with the SCB. The ball is rolling and gathering momentum. Many of the conference topics would be familiar to SCB members, are relevant to our concerns, and tie in nicely to burgeoning efforts by the medical community. Such topics include wildlife veterinary care and diseases in both wild and captive animals, the emerging recognition of endocrine disrupters relative to animal and human health, the destruction and fragmentation of tropical forests and other ecosystems and resultant emerging diseases, wildlife-human disease linkages (e.g., Lyme disease), the many known and yet-undiscovered pharmaceutical products inherent in nature, the importance of ecosystem services to human health, and the effects of climate change on ecosystems and consequently on human populations. Integration of conservation biology and medicine will be beneficial to all parties. Biomedical research fields will benefit by developing a broader context for the concept of health. For example, the ecological basis for emerging diseases needs to be better understood. Animal populations displaced via habitat fragmentation or alteration can provide new niches for pathogens or can carry their pathogens to new areas and new species. Populations of humans or animals exposed to a new infectious organism tend to experience disease in an explosive manner, whereas endemic infectious organisms are more commonly associated with sporadic and lower-level outbreaks of disease. Hence, habitat fragmentation can adversly affect populations for all the reasons documented by conservation biologists as well as from increased susceptibility to introduced diseases. Medical workers are also learning that disease at the population level can be a symptom of an inbalance in or insult to the system, much like disease in an individual represents an upset of host defenses. A fundamental perspective of conservation medicine at this early stage represents a shift from viewing diseases of humans or wildlife simply as individual responses to pathogens to understanding them as broader, complex processes affected by ecological systems and understood only within that context (i.e., “the ecological context of health”). If broadly adopted, this more holistic perspective not only would benefit human health but certainly would place a higher premium on learning about, protecting, and restoring natural ecosystems. Thus, an added biomedical perspective surely would give conservation biology a higher public profile and offer even stronger arguments for biodiversity protection. As we proceed into Earth's sixth major extinction episode with little indication of a respite, laypersons with whom a biodiversity message does not resonate or to whom extinction has no meaning surely would be more apt to listen when human health is involved. One of the difficult messages for conservation biologists to promote is the very real linkage between biodiversity and personal well-being. There are not many topics more personal than health, and strong scientific links between conservation biology and human health could be our most powerful tool in reaching larger expanses of humanity. Several planned or possible activities will help to develop this collaborative venture over the next several years. First, a symposium on conservation medicine at the 2000 SCB meeting in Missoula, Montana, is in the planning stages. This will afford an opportunity for all conservation biologists to familiarize themselves with this growing discipline. Second, a book is being developed as an outcome from the aforementioned conference. Along with several existing and excellent books on health and conservation, this should begin to define and guide the field and generate further developments. Third, there has been some discussion of a special section in Conservation Biology on the subject, a topic I am in favor of pursuing. Finally, there is growing interest in joint meetings between the SCB and several societies concerned with wildlife or human health to further bring together scientists with a common interest. Conservation medicine is an exciting venture but one that will succeed only with broad participation. Framing biodiversity issues in context of global health is not only consistent with the goals and objectives of this society, but it is also perhaps one of the great reasons for optimism in otherwise dismal times. Many arguments for protecting biodiversity can be rejected by uninformed individuals on selfish grounds, but human health transcends all of these. Among Aldo Leopold's many keen and timeless observations is that a person with an ecological education “lives alone in a world of wounds.” Development of a vigorous discipline of conservation medicine could be our best opportunity to begin not only to heal those wounds but also to stop feeling quite so alone. We should welcome and promote this new opportunity.

Roles for scientific societies to engage with conservation policy.

Conservation biology emerged in the mid-1980s, drawing on established disciplines and integrating them in pursuit of a coherent goal: the protection and perpetuation of the Earth's biological diversity. Opportunistic in its borrowing and application of knowledge, conservation biology had its roots within the established biological sciences and resource management disciplines but has continually incorporated insights from the empirical experience of resource managers, from the social sciences and humanities, and from diverse cultural sources. The Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) has represented the field's core constituency, while expanding that constituency in keeping with the field's integrative spirit. Conservation Biology has served as SCB's flagship publication, promoting research, dialog, debate, and application of the field's essential concepts. Over the last 20 years the field, SCB, and the journal have evolved to meet changing conservation needs, to explore gaps in our knowledge base, to incorporate new information from related fields, to build professional capacity, and to provide expanded opportunities for international participation. In turn, the field, SCB, and journal have prompted change in related fields, organizations, and publications. In its dedication to advancing the scientific foundations of biodiversity conservation and placing that science at the service of society in a world whose variety, wildness, and beauty we care for conservation biology represents both a continuation and radical reconfiguration of the traditional relationship between science and conservation.

From Assemblage to Community

Effective conservation requires a variety of perspectives that center on different ways of knowing. Disciplinary diversity and inclusion (DDI) offers an important means of integrating different ways of knowing into pressing conservation challenges. However, DDI means more than multiple disciplinary approaches to conservation; cognitive diversity and epistemic justice are key. In 2020, the Disciplinary Inclusion Task Force was formed via a grassroots movement of the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) to assess the extent of DDI and to chart a path to increase DDI. First, we assessed past and present SCB governance documents. Next, we surveyed current SCB members (n = 577). Finally, we surveyed nonmember conservationists (n = 213). Members who were not biological scientists perceived SCB as less diverse (21.4% vs. 16%) and not equitable (21.8% vs. 161%), and, although the majority (44) of nonmembers reported that their work aligned reasonably well with the mission of the SCB, they thought the organization focused on biological sciences. Despite SCB's mission to be diverse and inclusive, realizing this mission will likely require diverse epistemological perspectives and shifting from top‐down models of knowledge transfer. In centering on DDI, SCB can achieve its aspirations of connecting members across disciplines and ways of knowing to foster diverse perspectives and practices. We recommend that SCB and other organizations develop mechanisms to increase recruitment and retention of diverse members and leadership as well as expand strategic partnerships to flatten disciplinary hierarchies and promote inclusivity.

Unity

Over a lifetime of commitment to conservation, Eleanor Jane Sterling tirelessly dedicated her time, expertise, and brilliant mind to sustaining biodiversity and people's relationships with nature. Eleanor's work transcended disciplines and had a profound impact on biological and social sciences, field research, and community engagement and collaboration around the globe, with direct application to conservation action. She pioneered new ways of achieving just, equitable, and effective conservation, emphasizing the need to place Indigenous knowledge and cultural norms, traditions, and customs at the heart of conservation practice. Her passion for inclusive communication, education, and mentoring and her catalyzing role in collaborations among researchers, practitioners, and community members across the world have been instrumental in bridging ways of knowing. Her pioneering work on advancing biocultural approaches to biodiversity conservation, placing cultural concerns at the forefront of engagement with local actors, in particular in British Columbia, Hawaiˈi, and Solomon Islands, led to influential publications on well-being, the importance of connections between people and place, and how to integrate this new understanding into environmental policy tools and metrics, such as the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services. Her outstanding efforts were recognized through her numerous awards and prestigious appointments, including the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) Distinguished Service Award (2013), the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Commission on Environmental, Economic and Social Policy inaugural Meritorious Research Award (2016), and most recently, the IUCN Fred M. Packard International Parks Merit Award (2023). Ever modest, Eleanor often preferred to highlight the contributions of her collaborators and colleagues rather than the success of her own endeavors. Active on the SCB board for many years, Eleanor placed a high priority on advancing more inclusive, equitable, and diverse conservation workplaces, professional societies, and networks. She was a founding member of the Equity, Inclusion, and Diversity (EID) Committee at SCB, and the committee itself was formed in direct response to activities she convened at SCB conferences and a paper she published with colleagues in this journal (Foster et al., 2014). Eleanor facilitated key initiatives at the highest levels of SCB based on high-impact and data-driven evaluation and training to inform the society's decisions and approaches related to diversity, equity, inclusivity, and belonging. The new governance structure and Vision 2026 of SCB reflect many of the tenets that Eleanor advocated tirelessly, including creating more localized, diverse, equitable, and distributed leadership and decision-making structures. Through these efforts, and throughout her life, Eleanor worked to better recognize her own privilege and leverage it to advocate for change and center those with less power in the spaces where change is made. Eleanor launched her career at Yale University, in a joint doctoral program between the Department of Anthropology and the School of the Environment. Her doctoral research focused on the ecology and behavior of the aye-aye, a reclusive nocturnal lemur that was once thought to be extinct. This research entailed following aye-ayes through the rainforest at night with a team of Malagasy research assistants on Nosy Mangabe, a small, uninhabited island in the Bay of Antongil. She went on to study the distribution patterns of biodiversity in tropical regions, leading behavioral and ecological studies of primates, whales, and sea turtles and of many other species in many different landscapes. She coauthored the monograph Vietnam: A Natural History, the first comprehensive natural history of Vietnam, and contributed to research on the ecosystem engineering of Galapagos tortoises. For more than 20 years, Eleanor was a generous and visionary leader at the American Museum of Natural History (AMNH), guiding and growing the conservation programs of the Center for Biodiversity and Conservation (CBC). She became well known as a science communicator and made powerful use of the museum's platform for public outreach through exhibits and events. Eleanor curated landmark traveling exhibits that advanced public understanding of the environment, including Water H20 = Life (November 2007 to May 2008), Our Global Kitchen (November 2012 to August 2013), and Yellowstone to Yukon (July 2006 to March 2007). She also spearheaded an influential, annual conservation symposium for over a decade and the Living with Nature series, a set of public events and freely available materials relating to everyday actions that citizens can take to reduce their impact on the environment. In 2022, Eleanor and her husband, Kevin Frey, moved to the island of Oahu, where Eleanor was the director of the University of Hawaiˈi at Mānoa Hawaiˈi Institute of Marine Biology. She was only in the position for a year, but her contributions to sustainable funding and strategic planning were instrumental to the long-term success of the institute, centering on place-based research and building relationships with the local community. Through affiliations with higher education institutions in New York, Hawaiˈi, and beyond, Eleanor contributed to the training and mentoring of (quite literally) thousands of emerging conservationists across the United States through direct supervision as a thesis sponsor, committee member, or professor and through the establishment of the Network of Conservation Educators and Practitioners (NCEP). NCEP works to make conservation training and education more effective and accessible by developing teaching and learning materials and professional development programs. It has reached close to 5000 educators and practitioners in over 20 countries, increasing conservation capacity worldwide. Eleanor challenged our discipline to grapple with the complexity of conservation science as one that was prefaced on unacknowledged histories, subject to ongoing identity-based biases and riddled with unintended consequences. She advocated for a bolder transformative vision for the study and practice of conservation. She continued to recast her recommendations to create meaningful change as she deepened her appreciation of the ways systemic and structural forces affect conservation and broader society. Eleanor will be deeply missed by her colleagues and friends in conservation. Her extraordinary and creative mind, tireless and visionary efforts to broker collaboration and catalyze action, and advancement of equity and inclusion will continue to inspire us, always. Photo by Michael Appleton.

Science: Who Needs It?

SCB moves to establish a ‘policy presence’ in Washington DC

Toward a Pro‐Life Politics

If Rome Is Burning, Why Are We Fiddling?

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) of the United States was enacted in 1973 to prevent the extinction of species. Recovery plans, required by 1988 amendments to the ESA, play an important role in organizing these efforts to protect and recover species. To improve the use of science in the recovery planning process, the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) commissioned an independent review of endangered species recovery planning in 1999. From these findings, the SCB made key recommendations for how management agencies could improve the recovery planning process, after which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service redrafted their recovery planning guidelines. One important recommendation called for recovery plans to make threats a primary focus, including organizing and prioritizing recovery tasks for threat abatement. We sought to determine the extent to which results from the SCB study were incorporated into these new guidelines and whether the SCB recommendations regarding threats manifested in recovery plans written under the new guidelines. Recovery planning guidelines generally incorporated the SCB recommendations, including those for managing threats. However, although recent recovery plans have improved in their treatment of threats, many fail to adequately incorporate threat monitoring. This failure suggests that developing clear guidelines for monitoring should be an important priority in improving ESA recovery planning.

Although natural resource management encompasses a wide range of disciplines, those with the closest ties to conservation biology are the renewable resources: forestry, fisheries management, range management, and especially wildlife management. How do practitioners in these disciplines view conservation biology? Some describe conservation biology as being entirely different from their disciplines because it seems more focused on protection of selected species or ecosystems than on management of populations and habitats—the hallmark of the natural resource disciplines. Others insist conservation biology is the same as wildlife management. In our view the truth lies somewhere between these two perspectives. We base our view on >75 years of combined experience in the ecological sciences and the professional disciplines of wildlife, rangeland, and forest management. We remember well when the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) was formed to advance the science, practice, and goals of conserving biological diversity. We were among the first members and have watched as the group matured into a full-fledged society with a membership and publications that are international in scope and reach. The field of conservation biology arose from the milieu of complex issues involving land, natural resources, and the future of the Earth’s biological diversity, as did natural resource disciplines. These shared origins mean conservation biology has much in common with the natural resource disciplines. Yet conservation biology now fills a distinct niche that plays a complementary role in the larger realm of applied biological sciences and conservation practice.