Ocean & Coastal Management 115 (2015) 71e76

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Ocean & Coastal Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ocecoaman

“Back off, man, I'm a scientist!” When marine conservation science meets policy

* Naomi A. Rose a, E.C.M. Parsons b, a Animal Welfare Institute, Washington DC, USA b Department of Environmental Science & Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA article info abstract

Article history: There is often a basic tension at the boundary between science and policy e the former seeks unbiased, Received 4 January 2015 objective descriptions of reality, while the latter must incorporate various factors in its development, Received in revised form including values, ideologies, economics, biases, and emotions. Problems may arise if, and when, marine 24 April 2015 scientists who enter the policy arena fail to understand these differing priorities, and we describe some Accepted 27 April 2015 common pitfalls. Various strategies are presented for marine conservation scientists to consider in order to avoid or minimize misunderstandings, especially with the media. Conflict of interest issues and public perception of bias are also addressed, as is misuse of research results and whether scientists have an Keywords: Marine conservation obligation to correct misrepresentation of their research. Finally, we consider how marine scientists Policy should address the inherent uncertainty in their results when those results are used to develop policy, Advocacy including the importance of incorporating the Precautionary Principle when making science-based Advice policy. Policy engagement © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http:// Precautionary principle creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction 2. Marine scientists engaging in policy

Conservation scientists have long debated whether they should “Back off, man, I'm a scientist.” Bill Murray as Dr. Peter Venkman advocate for their science (Lackey, 2007; Noss, 2007; Chan, 2008; in the film Ghostbusters Nelson and Vucetich, 2009; Parsons, 2013), but in recent years at- titudes have changed. The need for marine conservation scientists Scientists often believe that in order to make good natural re- and their professional societies to become more engaged with sources policy, all that is needed is good science. For example, in managers and policy-makers is now generally recognized. How- 1998 a researcher posted on the marine mammal science listserve ever, policy is politics and politics is people. This means that when MARMAM that “[a]fter 20 years of work with and around marine governments determine conservation policy, values, ideologies, mammals I have come to the conclusion that there is only one thing economics, biases, and emotions are all factors to consider in the that will save them: research.” decision-making, with varying degrees of relevance depending on While science is a very important factor in policy-making the issue. Politics and policy-makers often (usually) have a different related to natural resources, in fact it is rarely the most important agenda from that of science, which seeks unbiased, objective de- e and is never the only e input that matters. Science can sometimes scriptions of reality. Any marine scientist who chooses to get take a protracted time to produce meaningful results and if only involved in policy needs to understand this fundamental difference bad policy is made in the meantime, a great deal of damage could from the outset or problems will ensue. While we encourage more result. marine scientists to become involved in advocating for science- Marine scientists who believe that good policy exclusively based policy decisions (see Parsons, 2013), here we offer a sum- hinges on science can develop an elevated or unrealistic sense of mary of the pitfalls that the unprepared may encounter when their own importance e we would go so far as to call it arrogance e entering the policy arena. which can hinder effective communication in the policy arena. Policy-makers, no more than anyone else, do not like being patronized. Academic arrogance, or even the perception of arro- * Corresponding author. Department of Environmental Science & Policy, George Mason University, MSN 5F2, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA, 22030-4444, USA. gance, can lead to chronic communications breakdowns. E-mail address: [email protected] (E.C.M. Parsons). Moreover, scientists often do not understand that many people, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2015.04.016 0964-5691/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). 72 N.A. Rose, E.C.M. Parsons / Ocean & Coastal Management 115 (2015) 71e76 including policy-makers, will ignore scientific evidence if it con- they understand and value, if the goal is to get their acceptance of tradicts their core beliefs and values (Redlawsk, 2002; certain related information. For example, scientists could frame the Lewandowsky et al., 2013; Nyhan et al., 2014). protection of whales not by extolling the importance of protecting biodiversity or saving a majestic species, but by emphasizing their contribution to tourism revenue generation and the associated 2.1. Policy-makers and science illiteracy benefits to coastal economies (Parsons et al., 2003). “They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, but it's not one half so bad as a lot of ignorance” Pratchett (1987, by Terry Pratchett) Troublesome scientists Here are three ‘types’ of scientists who can create diffi- A major current example is the continuing public debate in the culties (rather than assist in solutions) when involving United States as to whether climate change even exists (Smith and themselves in policy debates and discussions. fi Leiserowitz, 2012; Schneider, 2009), despite strong scienti c evi- The Naı¨ve Scientist dence that it does and moreover is being caused by human activity (IPCC, 2007; Lovejoy, 2014). Denying scientific facts is not unique to These scientists believe that if only policy-makers had the climate change, however (Diethelm and McKee, 2009). There are right information, they would make the right decisions. They more egregious examples, such as politicians who do not believe in do not understand the important human and legal di- evolution, ignoring the plethora of data to the contrary. mensions of policy-making and make little attempt to inter- For example, Representative Paul Broun (R-GA), of the U.S. pret their work in that context. As one researcher stated in an “ Congress' House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, interview, If all sides devoted their resources to research once stated that “all that stuff I was taught about evolution and rather than to lawsuits, we could get some answers, but ” embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit without them, the lawsuits will continue (Madin, 2009). of hell” (Associated Press, 2012). Rep. Broun holds a medical degree The ‘Ivory Tower’ Scientist and thus is one of the few members of Congress who has a science They believe that it is essential for scientists to remain background, yet he believes that the earth is only 9000 years old ‘pure’, to stay at arm's length from anything resembling (Associated Press, 2012). The former chair of the House Committee, advocacy, even though they may also seek media attention (former) Representative Bart Gordon (D-TN), explained that for their work. This may result in essential data not reaching “[the current committee members] see science as a liberal plot, policy-makers, resulting in poor decisions. Or, even worse, to validate something they don't think is true. And climate their research is mischaracterized or misunderstood and change is a good example” (Anonymous, 2013; also see https:// they make no attempt to correct these misinterpretations whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/12/04/im-no-scientist- (see below). As a researcher once told one of the authors colbert-on-republican-climate-change-denialism/). (Rose): “I can't be held responsible for the policy implica- Disregard of science in the United States is especially galling, as tions of my work.” the US Constitution states that Congress has a duty “to promote the Progress of Science” (Article 1, Section 8). This statement actually The ‘Industry’ Scientist comes before Congressional power to declare war and to form a They work directly for special interests, but expect their navy. The current state of affairs would certainly horrify the sci- science (even when not peer-reviewed) to be accepted as entists among the founders of the nation, such as Thomas Jefferson objective. They either do not understand their conflicts of and Benjamin Franklin (who was a Fellow of the Royal Society). This interest, or ignore them. As one government scientist is not a uniquely current occurrence, as Isaac Asimov, Boston Uni- emphatically stated in a policy meeting attended by one of versity biochemistry professor, author, and science advocate the authors (Rose), in response to a comment from a (1980), pointed out more than three decades ago: participant that there was disagreement over industry “There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has research results, “Only if you disagree with science!” always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that my ignorance is just as good as 2.2. Communicating with policy-makers your knowledge.” A number of papers have been written on the skills and training However, no matter how many scientific facts are presented to required by conservation biologists (Blockstein, 2002; Jacobson, such policy-makers, their deeply held beliefs may cause them to 1990; Jacobson and Robinson, 1990; Cannon et al., 1996; Jacobson reject those that do not fit within their world view. The likelihood and McDuff, 1998; Inouye and Dietz, 2000; Clark, 2001; Fisher of scientists' changing these firmly held beliefs and values is et al., 2009; Muir and Schwartz, 2009; Blickley et al., 2013; negligibly small. The incoming chair of the US Congressional Parsons, 2012) and they frequently point out the need to be able Environment and Public Works Committee is an infamous climate to understand policy and communicate with policy-makers. How- change denier, who even published a book called “The Greatest ever, scientists are often overconfident in their communication Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future” skills, equating good teaching evaluations and conference pre- (Inhofe, 2012). To write an entire book on how anthropogenic sentations with wider communication skills. Scientists can climate change is not happening requires an author to ignore the completely lose an audience of Congressional aides by explaining in vast majority of peer-reviewed science on the issue and disregard excruciating detail the theory and methodology of their studies, the opinion of scientists on a truly enormous scale. Therefore, it instead of providing a brief summary of research conclusions and may sometimes be necessary to reframe an argument and to pre- public, economic and political implications of their work, about sent issues to such policy-makers in ways that avoid mention of which policy-makers care most (Parsons, 2013). Communications trigger topics such as climate change or evolution and in terms that training is important preparation for engaging in the policy arena N.A. Rose, E.C.M. Parsons / Ocean & Coastal Management 115 (2015) 71e76 73

(Parsons, 2013) and there are books that can also assist; we 100 in the Senate. Currently, 25 Congressional members have some recommend Chapters 6e8 and 13 in Baron (2010) and Olson (2009). type of medical degree, while six are engineers and three are sci- Scientists can get involved in policy inadvertently or deliber- entists (one microbiologist and two physicists), for a total of 34 ately, but regardless they should recognize (and investigate) when members with a background in a STEM discipline. Therefore less their research is likely to have policy implications. They should than 10% of federal legislators have a background in science or prepare for worst-case scenarios e for example, how their work science training at the college or university level and thus can be could possibly be misinterpreted, or how the findings could be said to have a substantive understanding of science. deliberately manipulated to promote a political agenda. As an example, Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), a Scientists should also identify their goals in getting involved in member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technol- policy when they are doing so deliberately. For example, are they ogy, showed an illuminating (lack of) understanding of climate seeking merely to provide objective information to policy-makers science by stating in a hearing on UN climate policies, “Is there some or are they seeking to influence a particular outcome? In our thought being given to subsidizing the clearing of rainforests in order opinion, remaining completely objective is an unrealistic goal; for some countries to eliminate that production of greenhouse gases?” nevertheless, many scientists think this is possible, reasonable, and (Samuelsohn, 2011). Additionally, a low level of science literacy even desirable. Scientists are human beings and should recognize among policy-makers is not unique to the United States (e.g., that they have values and opinions (Noss, 2007). Arguably staying Goldstein, 2010). Therefore, expecting policy-makers to understand uninvolved is not desirable and frequently not even possible, complex scientific methods, results and principles is unrealistic, especially given that many conservation scientists received their although staffers often have the necessary background to under- training and conduct their research precisely because they value stand these details. the conservation of biodiversity and wildlife. Communications training can aid delivering a scientific message to policy-makers, and also to the general public (Olson, 2009). However, simply because a message is clear does not mean it will 2.3. Should marine scientists even engage in policy? be absorbed, especially when dealing with issues that are so politically charged that policy-makers and journalists may filter “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to these messages and ‘cherry pick’ statements that back their pre- do nothing.” Edmund Burke (Irish statesman and philosopher, conceived arguments (Wright et al., 2013a). Still, clarity of message 1729e1797) is often the exception rather than the rule. “Those who have the privilege to know, have the duty to act.” Al- The following example shows how one set of research results bert Einstein (1879e1955) was misunderstood by the media in two directly conflicting ways. Mooney et al. (2009) published on the impacts of simulated mili- tary sonar on captive dolphins. Two media headlines simulta- With all the pitfalls involved with scientists engaging in policy, neously stated: should they simply avoid the policy arena? We would argue that, as marine scientists, we best understand the biology and ecology of “Sonar doesn't appear to deafen dolphins” (Thomas, 2009) marine species, ecosystems and ecological processes, as well as the and uncertainty and caveats of research. Therefore, marine scientists should become involved, as our input is vital to the protection of the “Military sonar blamed for deafness in dolphins” (Hooper, 2009). marine environment. The alternative is having those who do not understand marine science interpreting research results. This could One should work to correct misinterpretation of one's findings lead to a ‘Chinese whisper’ effect, with each stage of translation of whenever it occurs. Ideally, where appropriate, one should actively the translation of science to the policy-makers being over- promote a specific conservation goal (e.g., protection of habitat, simplified or distorted so that the policy-makers eventually passage of legislation or regulations that benefit wildlife), which is receive incorrect information. Marine scientists engaging with difficult to misunderstand. policy helps research results arrive at a policy forum in a more accurate and less ideologically-transformed format. 3.1. Do scientists have a responsibility to correct inaccurate In the field of conservation biology, arguably all research has interpretations of their work? policy implications. However, even in less applied fields of marine biology, research can have policy implications. Rose et al. (2011) What should happen if policy-makers and the media misun- analyzed a broad selection of published cetacean science literature derstand or misrepresent research results (accidentally or deliber- (n ¼ 2812 papers) for the period 2005e2008. Of the papers that ately)? Some scientists say it is not their responsibility to correct the focused on some aspect of cetacean biology or ecology, approxi- misinterpretations of others, but if these misunderstandings lead to mately 54% were on basic biology, while the rest were on policy decisions and public opinions that are deleterious to con- conservation-related topics. Given the necessarily somewhat sub- servation, then we and other scientists (for example, see also Karr, jective nature of determining whether a paper was focused on basic or 2006) disagree. Some scientific societies specifically direct their applied biology, this was likely an underestimate of the number of members to correct misrepresentations of their work. For example, studies undertaken to inform cetacean management or conservation the Society for Conservation Biology Code of Ethics calls for mem- actions. This suggests that, given the often cryptic ecology and con- bers to “attempt to correct misrepresentation of their research by servation status of many marine mammals, if one is working with others” (http://www.conbio.org/SCB/Information/Ethics/). these taxa, then there are likely to be policy implications to one's Unfortunately, there are many examples where researchers work, and similar situations are likely for other marine species, top make no effort to correct the misuse of their results by politicians, predators and/or biologically important habitats, such as rainforests. industry, non-governmental organizations, or others (alternatively, when they do, there are times when they are ignored). Scientists 3. Lost in translation are often passive, not wanting to get involved in controversies. This is an understandable human impulse, but in the case of science in There are 435 members in the U.S. House of Representatives and policy, it is troubling. 74 N.A. Rose, E.C.M. Parsons / Ocean & Coastal Management 115 (2015) 71e76

4. Conflicts of interest Indeed, military representatives called the president and several deans of the academic institution of one of the authors (Parsons), Researchers should accept and anticipate that conflicts of in- noting the concerns he had expressed regarding the impacts of terest will occur on occasion, and that perceived conflicts of interest military sonar on cetaceans in peer-reviewed papers, and further will occur even more often, rather than ignore, deny or reject the noting that the Office of Naval Research funded several research possibility. Rejecting potential conflicts will frequently merely projects at this institution, in what was perceived as a not-terribly- emphasize the perception that one exists and consequently that veiled threat. Military officials also dictated which faculty could or one's data are biased. could not be on the graduate committees of students who were Again, the Society for Conservation Biology calls for members to actively serving in the military (Parsons, pers. obs.). “disclose conflicts of interest.” Moreover, the (U.S.) National Research In the environmental consulting field this has long been Council describes the problem adeptly: recognized e the client often dictates the conclusions of a study, because if a client is not pleased, contracts and funding are not “… sponsors of research need to be aware that studies funded and renewed (see Wright et al., 2013b). If one feels that speaking out led by one special interest are vulnerable to concerns about conflict might affect funding, or might otherwise result in punishment, of interest. For example, research on the effects of smoking funded then one does not have academic freedom and one's scientific by [the U.S. National Institutes of Health] is likely to be perceived to opinion is not truly independent. be more objective than research conducted by the tobacco in- dustry” (National Research Council, 2000, p. 84). 5. The Precautionary Principle These conflict of interest perceptions might appear as common sense when the issue is not related to one's own work, but when it The Precautionary Principle was introduced as part of the 1982 is, it may be difficult not to take the perception personally. This United Nations World Charter for Nature, and was incorporated impulse should be resisted. With tobacco, we can say, “of course, into the 1992 Rio Declaration (on Environment and Development), this is common sense.” It is also common sense when the issue is the result of the so-called Earth Summit meeting. Principle 15 of the military sonar, the welfare of captive marine mammals, whaling or Rio Declaration described the Precautionary Principle as follows: marine oil and gas exploration impacts. Science coming from a user “Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of group (e.g., industry, military) e or heavily funded by a user group full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing e is going to be perceived as biased. It is not a personal attack when cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.” this is pointed out. Unfortunately when it comes to perceptions of conflicts of in- terest, there is often little that can be done to remedy these beyond The European Union enshrines the Precautionary Principle in being honest and open to audiences, clearly disclosing the conflict, environmental decision-making (European Union, 2000): and experiencing a subsequent series of positive, objective interac- “The precautionary principle applies where scientific evidence is tion with audiences. Scientists need to accept that some audiences insufficient, inconclusive or uncertain and preliminary scientific will perceive a bias, and there is usually no way to eliminate initial evaluation indicates that there are reasonable grounds for public perceptions. Therefore, as noted above, scientists should not concern.” take this as a personal slight on their honor and integrity, but accept that perceptions of bias will happen and take this in their stride. It is a tenet of the Precautionary Principle that interventions 4.1. The fallacy of the truly independent scientist (actions) are required to be put in place before actual harm occurs to humans or the environment, and managers cannot simply wait Many research funding sources have political strings attached. until there is scientific certainty or impacts occur (UNESCO, 2005). For example, the U.S. Navy funds 70% of all marine mammal However, in general a degree of initial scientific analysis is required research in the United States and 50% of marine mammal research before the Precautionary Principle is invoked, and that there is a worldwide (Weilgart et al., 2004). Its funding is allocated according “plausible” scientifically valid concern (UNESCO, 2005). A good to its policy priorities; likewise with major commercial funders example of how the Precautionary Principle can be used is in the (e.g., the oil and gas industry). Although non-profit charity funding IPCC (2007) report, where scientifically plausible predictions are is comparatively tiny, it too is used to advance an organization's outlined on which policy-makers can base decisions. agenda, which is ideological and often political. However, it is an inside joke that a scientist's final comment in a Even in the best case, research foundations have priorities set by presentation will be that more research/funding is needed. This is establishers and directors. These are often based on non-scientific often a researcher's default response about the impacts of an values and opinions. With so much funding being politically environmental threat. Marine scientists are generally averse to motivated, it is difficult to identify scientists who are truly inde- taking a precautionary approach; as an example of non- pendent of political agendas. In addition to potential conflicts of precautionary thinking, one researcher noted, “… [I]n five years, interest, the fact that so much funding is politically motivated researchers will know enough about beaked whale behavior in means that ideas that do not directly address political goals cannot response to sonar to allow the Navy to plan missions that have min- be readily investigated. imum impact on whales” (Madin, 2009). However, conflicts may be even more egregious, through direct This comment focuses too much on science and not enough on interference in research. There is evidence that the U.S. Navy has policy e it ignores the Precautionary Principle. Policy inertia, which used the threat of withdrawing funding to stifle commentary from can lead to status quo conservation disasters that the Precautionary academics (Whitehead and Weilgart, 1995; Weilgart et al., 2004).1 Principle was formulated to avoid, can sometimes arise from sci- entists' natural caution in interpreting results. Marine scientists carry a lot of weight in the policy arena, even 1 See also: Administrative Record, August 6e9, 2001, Natural Resources Defense when they are not directly involved. Even a casual comment that Council v. Evans, 279 F. Supp. 2d 1129 (N.D. Cal. 2003). becomes public can have undue influence on policy-makers. It is N.A. Rose, E.C.M. Parsons / Ocean & Coastal Management 115 (2015) 71e76 75 also important to note that comments can be taken out of context Anticipate where and how science might be misunderstood, and then perpetuated, with the important caveats, exemptions and misinterpreted or taken out of context by policy-makers. critical explanations that should accompany these comments being lost (Wright et al., 2013a). We recommend that more training in science communication, at both the undergraduate and graduate level, be made available at universities. This would include training in engaging with policy- 6. In policy development, disagreement can be good makers, addressing the media, and speaking to the lay public (Olson, 2009; Parsons, 2012). Training should not only include Disagreement can sometimes lead to better policy in the long communication techniques, but it should also prepare scientists for run and does not have to be perceived as conflict. Disagreeing on the pitfalls and obstacles that might be encountered when scien- practical, real-time, cost-effective, and for that matter politically tists engage in policy (Parsons, 2013). We urge our colleagues to viable application of research results to management is not the understand that even when science produces compelling results, same as disagreeing on (or ignoring) the results themselves. For politicians will make political decisions, and be prepared for this example, we and our colleagues published a paper that, among eventuality. other things, expressed concern about an over-reliance by policy- We also recommend that universities and academic bodies makers on preliminary captive cetacean research results whose consider introducing additional metrics to their evaluations of applicability to wild animals was uncertain, and the captive animal conservation faculty and researcher success, including whether studies might be underestimating potential impacts on animals in research published in journals is used in policy-making or envi- their natural environment (Parsons et al., 2008). Our original ronmental intervention. In other words, ask not only “Is a faculty commentary was not a rejection of those results, but the re- member's research published?” but “Is it cited in regulatory con- searchers responsible for them perceived it as such (Ridgway and texts?” For example, are papers cited in environmental impact Houser, 2009; Wright et al., 2009). Interestingly, the defensive studies, documents justifying endangered species listing, or pro- marine scientists agreed with our assessment several years later tected area establishment? Such a “real world” impact could (Houser et al., 2013). become part of the faculty evaluation process. With universities Far from impeding research, public pressure on policy-makers showing an increasing interest in the media impact of research e and funding agencies often results in greater funding for research via systems such as Altmetrics (www.altmetric.com) e it would be (J. Reynolds, pers. comm.). Similarly, legal action to strengthen a simple step to develop metrics that measure conservation environmental policy often indirectly increases funding for impacts. research generally, by motivating user groups and agencies to meet It would be a very different, and better, world indeed if faculty the standards of relevant environmental laws (Reynolds et al., gained tenure not for the size of their grants or how many papers 2009). they publish, but for the conservation and societal impact of their research beyond the ivory tower, with scientists being rewarded, instead of criticized, for producing marine science that matters. 7. Conclusion: engage in policy but recognize the pitfalls Acknowledgments “Dark times lie ahead of us and there will be a time when we must choose between what is easy and what is right.” Albus Dumb- This paper was the product of an International Marine Conser- ledore in Rowling (2002) vation Congress (IMCC) workshop. We wish to thank participants in the workshop and the IMCC organizers for their encouragement “You don’t just give up. You don’t just let things happen. You make a and enthusiasm in this project. We also thank two anonymous stand! You say no! You have the guts to do what’s right, even when reviewers for their useful comments on draft versions of this everyone else just runs away.” Billie Piper as Rose Tyler in Doctor manuscript. Who

References Marine scientists play an important e arguably essential e role in providing scientific advice to policy-makers. However, some- Anonymous, 2013. They said it. Science 341 (6141), 15. times regulatory decisions are only tenuously based on science. Asimov, I., 1980. A cult of ignorance. Newsweek (January 21) 19. Associated Press, 2012. Georgia Rep. Paul Broun calls evolution lie from ‘pit of hell’. This is not necessarily because science is being ignored or given low Politico, 6 October 2012. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82108. priority, but rather because it is often a step (or more) behind html. management needs. To avoid detrimental impacts to the environ- Baron, N., 2010. Escape from the Ivory Tower. Island Press., Washington DC. Blickley, J.L., Deiner, K., Garbach, K., Lacher, I., Meek, M.H., Porensky, L.M., ment, scientists should use a precautionary approach more Wilkerson, M.L., Winford, E.M., Schwartz, M.S., 2013. Graduate student's guide frequently. Waiting until overwhelming data are available before to necessary skills for nonacademic conservation careers. Conserv. Biol. 27, suggesting conservation actions is ill-advised, as the wheels of 24e34. Blockstein, D.E., 2002. How to lose your political virginity while keeping your sci- policy and regulatory change can move slowly and historically entific credibility. Bioscience 52, 91e96. conservation interventions have often been too late. Marine sci- Cannon, J.R., Dietz, J.M., Dietz, L.A., 1996. Training conservation biologists in human entists giving their expert opinion can result in excellent science- interaction skills. Conserv. Biol. 10, 1277e1282. based interim advice. If, for example, science eventually shows Chan, K.M., 2008. Value and advocacy in conservation biology: crisis discipline or discipline in crisis? Conserv. Biol. 22, 1e3. that a protected area is larger than required, it is easier to reduce Clark, T.W., 2001. Developing policy-oriented curricula for conservation biology: the size of the area than it is to reintroduce the species populations professional and leadership education in the public interest. Conserv. Biol. 15, e that are extirpated because the area was too small. In addition, 31 39. Diethelm, P., McKee, M., 2009. Denialism: what is it and how should scientists scientists engaging in the policy arena should take measures to: respond? Eur. J. Pub. Health 19, 2e4. European Union 2000 EU, 2000. Communication from the Commission on the Understand policy and how policy-makers can misunderstand Precautionary Principle COM 1. Commission of the European Communities, Brussels. science; Fisher, B., Balmford, A., Green, R.E., Trevelyan, R., 2009. Conservation science Present science with policy implications carefully; training: the need for an extra dimension. Oryx 43, 361e363. 76 N.A. Rose, E.C.M. Parsons / Ocean & Coastal Management 115 (2015) 71e76

Goldstein, S., 2010. Parliament needs members who are scientifically literate. Na- Parsons, E.C.M., 2012. You'll be a conservationist if…. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2, ture 463, 876e877. 369e370. Hooper, R., 2009. Military sonar blamed for deafness in dolphins. New. Sci. http:// Parsons, E.C.M., 2013. So you want to be a Jedi? Advice for conservation researchers www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2009/04/military-sonar- wanting to advocate for their findings. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 3, 340e342. blamed-for-caus.html. Parsons, E.C.M., Dolman, S., Wright, A.J., Rose, N.A., Burns, W.C.G., 2008. Navy sonar Houser, D.S., Martin, S.W., Finneran, J.J., 2013. Exposure amplitude and repetition and cetaceans: just how much does the gun need to smoke before we act? Mar. affect bottlenose dolphin behavioral responses to simulated mid-frequency Pollut. Bull. 56, 1248e1257. sonar signals. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol. 443, 123e133. Parsons, E.C.M., Warburton, C.A., Woods-Ballard, A., Hughes, A., Johnston, P., 2003. Inhofe, J.M., 2012. The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy The value of conserving whales: the impacts of cetacean-related tourism on the Threatens Your Future. WND Books, Washington DC. economy of rural West Scotland. Aquat. Cons. 13, 397e415. Inouye, D.W., Dietz, J.M., 2000. Creating academically and practically trained Pratchett, T., 1987. Equal Rites. Random House/Corgi, London, UK. graduate students. Conserv. Biol. 14, 595e596. Redlawsk, D.P., 2002. Hot cognition or cool consideration? Testing the effects of IPCC, 2007. Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report. International Panel on Climate motivated reasoning on political decision making. J. Polit. 64, 1021e1044. Change, Geneva, Switzerland. Reynolds, J.R., Kiekow, T.G., Smith, S.Z., 2009. No whale of a tale: legal implications Jacobson, S.K., 1990. Graduate-education in conservation biology. Conserv. Biol. 4, of winter v. NRDC. Ecol.Law Quart. 36, 753e773. 431e440. Ridgway, S., Houser, D.S., 2009. Marine mammal auditory research: mischaracter- Jacobson, S.K., McDuff, M.D., 1998. Training idiot savants: the lack of human di- ization of published results. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58, 312e313. mensions in conservation biology. Conserv. Biol. 12, 263e267. Rose, N.A., Janiger, D., Parsons, E.C.M., Stachowitsch, M., 2011. Shifting baselines in Jacobson, S.K., Robinson, J.G., 1990. Training the new conservationist: cross- scientific publications: a case study using cetacean research. Mar. Pol. 35, disciplinary education in the 1990s. Environ. Conserv. 17, 319e327. 477e482. Karr, J.R., 2006. When Government ignores science, scientists should speak up. Rowling, J.K., 2002. Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Scholastic Paperbacks, New Bioscience 56, 287. York. Lackey, R.T., 2007. Science, scientists, and policy advocacy. Conserv. Biol. 21, 12e17. Samuelsohn, D., 2011. Do trees cause global warming? Politico, 25 May 2011. http:// Lewandowsky, S., Gignac, G.E., Oberauer, K., 2013. The role of conspiracist ideation www.politico.com/news/stories/0511/55731.html. and worldviews in predicting rejection of science. PLoS ONE 8 (10), e75637. Schneider, S.H., 2009. Science as a Contact Sport: inside the Battle to Save Earth's http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0075637. Climate. National Geographic, Washington DC. Lovejoy, S., 2014. Scaling fluctuation analysis and statistical hypothesis testing of Smith, N., Leiserowitz, A., 2012. The rise of global warming skepticism: exploring anthropogenic warming. Clim. Dynam. 42, 2239e2251. affective image associations in the United States over time. Risk Anal. 32, Madin, K., 2009. Supreme court weighs in on whales and sonar. Ocean. Mag. 47 (2). 1021e1032. http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/feature/supreme-court-weighs-in-on-whales- Thomas, C., 2009. Sonar doesn't appear to deafen dolphins. Sci. NOW. http://news. and-sonar. sciencemag.org/2009/04/sonar-doesnt-appear-deafen-dolphins. Mooney, T.A., Nachtigall, P.E., Vlachos, S., 2009. Sonar-induced temporary hearing UNESCO, 2005. The Precautionary Principle. UNESCO, Paris, France. loss in dolphins. Biol. Lett. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsbl.2009.0099. Whitehead, H., Weilgart, L., 1995. Marine mammal science, the U.S. Navy and aca- Muir, M.J., Schwartz, M.W., 2009. Academic research training for a nonacademic demic freedom. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 11, 260e263. workplace: a case study of graduate student alumni who work in conservation. Weilgart, L., Whitehead, H., Rendell, L., Calambokidis, J., 2004. Response to “Reso- Conserv. Biol. 23, 1357e1368. nance and dissonance: science, ethics, and sonar debate”. Mar. Mamm. Sci. 20, National Research Council, 2000. Report on Marine Mammals and Low-frequency 898e899. Sound. National Research Council, Washington DC. Wright, A.J., Parsons, E.C.M., Rose, N.A., Witcomb-Vos, E., 2013a. The science-policy Nelson, M.P., Vucetich, J.A., 2009. On advocacy by environmental scientists: what, disconnect: language issues at the science-policy boundary. Environ. Pract. 15, whether, why, and how. Conserv. Biol. 23, 1091e1101. 79e83. Noss, R., 2007. Values are a good thing in conservation biology. Conserv. Biol. 21, Wright, A.J., Dolman, S., Jasny, M., Parsons, E.C.M., Schiedek, D., Young, S., 2013b. 18e20. Myth and momentum: a critique of environmental impact assessments. Nyhan, B., Reifler, J., Richey, S., Freed, G.L., 2014. Effective messages in vaccine J. Environ. Prot. 4 (8A2), 72e77. promotion: a randomized trial. Pedia. http://dx.doi.org/10.1542/peds.2013- Wright, A.J., Rose, N.A., Parsons, E.C.M., Dolman, S.J., 2009. Urging cautious policy 2365. applications of captive research data is not the same as rejecting those data. Olson, R., 2009. Don't Be Such a Scientist; Talking Substance in an Age of Style. Mar. Pollut. Bull. 58, 314e316. island Press, Washington DC.