Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Effective Conservation ScienceData Not Dogma$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Peter Kareiva, Michelle Marvier, and Brian Silliman

Print publication date: 2017

Print ISBN-13: 9780198808978

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: December 2017

DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198808978.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (oxford.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use. date: 06 May 2021

Uncomfortable questions and inconvenient data in conservation science

Uncomfortable questions and inconvenient data in conservation science

Chapter:
(p.3) Chapter 1 Uncomfortable questions and inconvenient data in conservation science
Source:
Effective Conservation Science
Author(s):

Peter Kareiva

Michelle Marvier

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198808978.003.0001

This chapter outlines the problems of exaggeration, misuse of statistics, and publication bias that plague all scientific disciplines, but that may be especially acute in the mission-oriented field of conservation. Because conservation describes itself as a crisis discipline, its scientific publications tend to reinforce that view, even when the data are lacking. And when data run counter to accepted wisdom, out of fear such results might be misinterpreted or misused to counter conservation’s mission, the review process sometimes favors dogma over data. Black-box models, data gaps filled with expert opinion, and a general lack of easy access to key data make the testing of alternative hypotheses or interpretations extremely difficult. Self-correction and iteration are key to scientific progress. In conservation especially, with the fate of biodiversity in the balance, it is essential that conservationists get the science right, even if it means admitting mistakes.

Keywords:   publication bias, expert opinion, p-values, irreproducible results, evidence-based conservation, conservation science, conservation effectiveness

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .