Issue Number 118 October 2007 Green turtle hatchling from Turkey with extra carapacial scutes (see pp. 6-8). Photo by O. Türkozan IN THIS ISSUE: Editorial: Conservation Conflicts, Conflicts of Interest, and Conflict Resolution: What Hopes for Marine Turtle Conservation?..........................................................................................L.M. Campbell Articles: From Hendrickson (1958) to Monroe & Limpus (1979) and Beyond: An Evaluation of the Turtle Barnacle Tubicinella cheloniae.........................................................A. Ross & M.G. Frick Nest relocation as a conservation strategy: looking from a different perspective...................O. Türkozan & C. Yılmaz Linking Micronesia and Southeast Asia: Palau Sea Turtle Satellite Tracking and Flipper Tag Returns......S. Klain et al. Morphometrics of the Green Turtle at the Atol das Rocas Marine Biological Reserve, Brazil...........A. Grossman et al. Notes: Epibionts of Olive Ridley Turtles Nesting at Playa Ceuta, Sinaloa, México...............................L. Angulo-Lozano et al. Self-Grooming by Loggerhead Turtles in Georgia, USA..........................................................M.G. Frick & G. McFall IUCN-MTSG Quarterly Report Announcements News & Legal Briefs Recent Publications Marine Turtle Newsletter No. 118, 2007 - Page 1 ISSN 0839-7708 Editors: Managing Editor: Lisa M. Campbell Matthew H. Godfrey Michael S. Coyne Nicholas School of the Environment NC Sea Turtle Project A321 LSRC, Box 90328 and Earth Sciences, Duke University NC Wildlife Resources Commission Nicholas School of the Environment 135 Duke Marine Lab Road 1507 Ann St. and Earth Sciences, Duke University Beaufort, NC 28516 USA Beaufort, NC 28516 USA Durham, NC 27708-0328 USA E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] E-mail: [email protected] Fax: +1 252-504-7648 Fax: +1 919 684-8741 Founding Editor: Nicholas Mrosovsky University of Toronto, Canada Editorial Board: Brendan J. Godley & Annette C. Broderick (Editors Emeriti) Nicolas J. Pilcher University of Exeter in Cornwall, UK Marine Research Foundation, Malaysia George H. Balazs Manjula Tiwari National Marine Fisheries Service, Hawaii, USA National Marine Fisheries Service, La Jolla, USA Alan B. Bolten Kartik Shanker University of Florida, USA Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India Angela Formia Jeanette Wyneken University of Florence, Italy Florida Atlantic University, USA Colin Limpus Queensland Turtle Research Project, Australia MTN Online - The Marine Turtle Newsletter is available at the MTN web site: <http://www.seaturtle.org/mtn/>. Subscriptions and Donations - Subscriptions and donations towards the production of the MTN should be made online at <http://www.seaturtle. org/mtn/> or c/o SEATURTLE.ORG (see inside back cover for details). We are grateful to our major donors: Marine© Turtle Marine Newsletter Turtle No. Newsletter 118, 2007 - Page 1 Editorial: Conservation Conflicts, Conflicts of Interest, and Conflict Resolution: What Hopes for Marine Turtle Conservation? Lisa M. Campbell Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences, Duke University Marine Lab, 135 Marine Lab Rd, Beaufort, NC 28516 USA (E-mail: [email protected]) Debates about the role of science in policy–making, and that of shared by all conservation biologists, see (Brussard & Tull 2007) scientists as policy advocates, are not new. These roles have been for an alternative view of advocacy). Lackey (2007, 13) argues discussed among natural scientists (for example, see several articles that “Attempting to be both the provider of policy-neutral science in Conservation Biology 21:1) and examined by others (Jasanoff and an advocate for one’s personal policy preference is laden with 1996; Kinchy & Kleinman 2003). While all sciences struggle with conflicts of interest.” the tension between science and advocacy to a certain extent, this But what is conflict of interest? Generally, a conflict of interest tension is inherent in the field of conservation biology given its arises when a person with obligations to a particular organization, normative goals; conservation is normative in that it promotes or to maintaining a particular standard, is compromised by other what ‘ought’ to be rather than simply describing what ‘is.’ For commitments and interests. ‘Other’ interests are typically portrayed example, the mission of the Society for Conservation Biology as financial, but can also include more intangible gains, e.g. ensuring is “to advance the science and practice of conserving the Earth’s one policy option is adopted over another, or realizing deeply held biological diversity” (http://www.conbio.org/AboutUs/). Among values. Conflicts of interest can be potential, real, or perceived, and member organizations devoted to marine turtles, normative goals there are several possibilities for dealing with them. Disclosure of are also evident. For example, the International Sea Turtle Society’s conflicts of interest is probably the most common method (and mission is bringing “people together to promote the exchange the most feasible). Disclosure can contribute to transparency and of information that advances the global knowledge of sea turtle assist people in assessing arguments for and against particular biology and conservation” (http://www.seaturtle.org/ists/mission. interpretations of data or of conservation policies. What is important php). While the ISTS mission statement can be read as advancing to note is that disclosing a conflict of interest does not remove it, the ‘knowledge of’ conservation rather than conservation per se, the but rather alerts others to its presence. Marine Turtle Specialist Group of the World Conservation Union Calls for disclosure of conflicts of interest surfaced recently in more directly advocates conservation. Its mission is: “To develop debates among members of the Marine Turtle Specialist Group and support strategies, set priorities, and provide tools that promote (MTSG) about the utility of the IUCN’s Red List criteria for and guide the conservation of marine turtles, and their ecological assessing the status of marine turtles. These calls surface primarily roles and habitats” (http://www.iucn-mtsg.org/about.shtml). when someone on one side of the debate is questioning the views of Scientists who are members of such organizations presumably someone on the other, i.e. there has been a focus on the conflicts of identify with their mission statements. Does membership in such interests, and to a certain extent Lackey’s (2006)‘demonization’, of organizations undermine a scientist’s claims to ‘objectivity’? particular people. There have also been suggestions for widespread Can we interpret membership in conservation organizations as a disclosure of conflicts of interest. Such disclosure in debates about potential source of bias when scientists are asked to provide data marine turtle conservation would achieve three important things. that will influence conservation policy? Beyond membership, are First, it would increase transparency in the debate for all of those scientists open to accusations of conflicts of interest based on the participating and watching from the sidelines. Second, it would funds and support they receive from specific organizations, be these increase self-awareness among participants. It is much easier to see government, private, or not-for-profit? At a more fundamental level, conflicts of interest in other people, particularly those we don’t agree is anyone able to fully meet the ideals of objectivity, completely with, than in ourselves (to this end, I advocate full disclosure, i.e. separating his/her values from science? In the world of marine moving beyond a listing of funding agencies and policy preferences, turtle conservation and research, these questions are more than to a more self-reflexive examination of personal bias). Third, it academic. Marine turtles and their conservation can be included might decrease animosity, since self-disclosure would reduce the in the category of what (Salwasser 2004) identifies as ‘wicked’ need for accusations of conflicts of interest between colleagues. problems. These have several characteristics, including: clear All of these things are worth pursuing. However, we need to winners and losers in policy outcomes; the use of science to mask recognize the limits to disclosure, i.e. what it won’t achieve. First, personal policy preferences; divisiveness and confrontation, where given the normative nature of conservation itself, the mission individuals demonize supporters of competing policy preferences statement of two of the largest organizations dedicated to marine rather than present analytical arguments; high levels of uncertainty; turtles, and the way research on conservation and on endangered national versus regional conflict; and semantic wrangling, where the species is funded, there are likely to be few scientists actively meaning of words matters and arguments over meaning are often engaged in debates about marine turtle biology and conservation surrogates for debates over values (Lackey 2006; Lackey 2007). In that could convince all other scientists that they have no potential, such cases, Lackey (2007, 12) argues that scientists “must exercise perceived, or real conflict of interest. Perception is important in this great care to play an appropriate and clearly defined role” and case, since it will impact on how someone’s position is assessed suggests that scientists avoid advocacy altogether (this view is not whether or not the conflict