Uses of scientific discourses and markers in shark attack risk management on Reunion Island

Abstract

The article discusses how the uses of scientific discourses and markers, by activists and policymakers have been perceived by scientific experts and journalists and generated tensions related to science use in managing shark attack risk on Reunion Island. Following a series of shark attacks in 2011, a scientific research program was funded by French authorities to help political decision-making to reduce shark attack risk on the island's west coast, from 2011 to 2015. This program collected a large set of data to understand the ecology of the shark species implied in the attacks. The authorities have also funded a selective fishing program as an operational management device, which opposed activists from sea users' NGOs requiring shark fishing and environmental NGOs requiring sharks' protection. Based on sixteen semi-directional interviews led with local scientific experts, activists, journalists and a mandated fisherman, the study explores how activists and policymakers are perceived as having reappropriated scientific discourses to legitimize their position on shark risk management in Reunion Island. The scientific experts’ perception of activists depends on the epistemology of their discipline and the values they carry about the management of living beings. Otherwise, the political shark risk management strategy on Reunion Island is perceived as preferring to use scientific rationality instead of social claims to justify public policies. These uses of science generated conflicts between scientific experts, policymakers and sea users, and argue for the need of a dialogical process between parties to manage shark attack unpredictable risk, by better considering its social interpretation.