Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Conservation Biologists and the Representation of At-Risk Species: Navigating Ethical Tensions in an Evolving Discipline

  • Articles
  • Published:
Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Conservation biology is a discipline with the explicit goal of protecting species from extinction. We examine how conservation biologists represent at-risk species, how they navigate values and ethical tensions in the discipline, and how they might be more effective in reaching conservation goals. While these topics are discussed in the literature, we offer a unique empirical examination of how individuals perceive and perform conservation work. We conducted 29 interviews with conservation biologists and found that most respondents viewed their work as providing information but also felt that other species have intrinsic value and we should extend our ethical standards to include other species. However, many attempted to separate science from values, and some felt it was necessary to hide their values and ethical positions and avoid advocacy. While conservation biologists navigate these tensions differently, those who engage in advocacy will likely be more effective in reaching conservation goals. Current societal values and views on ethical extension, rather than a lack of science, represent the most significant impediment to addressing the extinction crisis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Barnosky, A. D., Matzke, N., Tomiya, S., Wogan, G. O., Swartz, B., Quental, T. B., et al. (2011). Has the Earth’s sixth mass extinction already arrived? Nature, 471(7336), 51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barry, D., & Oelschlaeger, M. (1996). A science for survival: Values and conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 10(3), 905–911.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baumgaertner, B., & Holthuijzen, W. (2017). On nonepistemic values in conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 31(1), 48–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bingham, N. (2006). Bees, butterflies, and bacteria: Biotechnology and the politics of nonhuman friendship. Environment and Planning A, 38(3), 483–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blockstein, D. E. (2002). How to lose your political virginity while keeping your scientific credibility. BioScience, 52, 91–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. B. (2018). Speaking for nature: Hobbes, Latour, and the democratic representation of nonhumans. Science & Technology Studies, 31(1), 31–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brussard, P. F., & Tull, J. C. (2007). Conservation biology and four types of advocacy. Conservation Biology, 21(1), 21–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., Barnosky, A. D., García, A., Pringle, R. M., & Palmer, T. M. (2015). Accelerated modern human–induced species losses: Entering the sixth mass extinction. Science Advances, 1(5), 1400253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ceballos, G., Ehrlich, P. R., & Dirzo, R. (2017). Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(30), E6089–E6096.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K. M. (2008). Value and advocacy in conservation biology: Crisis discipline or discipline in crisis? Conservation Biology, 22(1), 1–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, K. M., Balvanera, P., Benessaiah, K., Chapman, M., Díaz, S., Gómez-Baggethun, E., et al. (2016). Opinion: Why protect nature? Rethinking values and the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(6), 1462–1465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chivian, E., & Bernstein, A. (Eds.). (2008). Sustaining life: How human health depends on biodiversity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doak, D. F., Bakker, V. J., Goldstein, B. E., & Hale, B. (2015). What is the future of conservation? Protecting the wild (pp. 27–35). Washington, DC: Island Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Donoso, A. (2017). Representing non-human interests. Environmental Values, 26(5), 607–628.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S. (2000). Deliberative democracy and beyond: Liberals, critics, contestations. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckersley, R. (1999). The discourse ethic and the problem of representing nature. Environmental Politics, 8, 24–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garner, R. (2016). Animals and democratic theory: Beyond an anthropocentric account. Contemporary Political Theory, 16(4), 459–477.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrard, G. E., Fidler, F., Wintle, B. C., Chee, Y. E., & Bekessy, S. A. (2016). Beyond advocacy: Making space for conservation scientists in public debate. Conservation Letters, 9(3), 208–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gerber, L. (2010). Conservation biology. Nature Education Knowledge, 3(10), 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, R. (1996). Enfranchising the earth, and its alternatives. Political Studies, 44, 835–849.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, S. J., Armstrong, J., Bogan, M., Darling, E., Kross, S., Rochman, C. M., et al. (2015). Conservation needs diverse values, approaches, and practitioners. Conservation Letters, 8(6), 385–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kareiva, P., & Marvier, M. (2007). Conservation for the people. Scientific American, 297, 50–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kareiva, P., & Marvier, M. (2012). What is conservation science? Bioscience, 62, 962–969.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lackey, R. T. (2007). Science, scientists, and policy advocacy. Conservation Biology, 21(1), 12–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2003). What if we talked politics a little? Contemporary Political Theory, 2(2), 143–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2004). Politics of nature. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leopold, A. (1949). A Sand County Almanac. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovejoy, T. E. (2017). Extinction tsunami can be avoided. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(32), 8440–8441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marvier, M. (2014). A call for ecumenical conservation. Animal Conservation, 17(6), 518–519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCallum, M. L. (2015). Vertebrate biodiversity losses point to a sixth mass extinction. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(10), 2497–2519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meine, C., Soulé, M., & Noss, R. F. (2006). “A mission-driven discipline”: the growth of conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 20(3), 631–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (Program). (2005). Ecosystems and human well-being. Washington, D.C: Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nash, R. F. (1989). The rights of nature: A history of environmental ethics. Madison, Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Noske, B. (1997). Beyond boundaries: Humans and animals. Montréal: Black Rose Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, S. (2011). Animals, equality and democracy. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • O’Neill, J. (2001). Representing people, representing nature, representing the world. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 19(4), 483–500.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petriello, M. A., & Wallen, K. E. (2015). Integrative reflections on the new conservation science debate. Biodiversity and Conservation, 24(6), 1549–1551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piccolo, J. J. (2017). Intrinsic values in nature: Objective good or simply half of an unhelpful dichotomy? Journal for Nature Conservation, 37, 8–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitkin, H. (1967). The concept of representation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrigues, A. S. L. (2006). Are global conservation efforts successful? Science, 313, 1051–1052.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roebuck, P., & Phifer, P. (1999). The persistence of positivism in conservation biology. Conservation Biology, 13(2), 444–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sandbrook, C., Scales, I. R., Vira, B., & Adams, W. M. (2011). Value plurality among conservation professionals. Conservation Biology, 25(2), 285–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7(5), 385–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soulé, M. E. (1985). What is conservation biology? BioScience, 35(11), 727–734.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Soulé, M. E. (1996). Conservation biology: The science of scarcity and diversity. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer & Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soulé, M. (2013). The ‘‘New Conservation’. Conservation Biology, 27, 895–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tallis, H., & Lubchenco, J. (2014). Working together: a call for inclusive conservation. Nature News, 515(7525), 27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, C. D., Cameron, A., Green, R. E., Bakkenes, M., Beaumont, L. J., Collingham, Y. C., et al. (2004). Extinction risk from climate change. Nature, 427(6970), 145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Sustainable Communities Program and the School of Earth and Environment, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, USA

    Diana Stuart

  2. Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA

    Jessica Bell Rizzolo

Authors
  1. Diana Stuart
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jessica Bell Rizzolo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diana Stuart.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Stuart, D., Rizzolo, J.B. Conservation Biologists and the Representation of At-Risk Species: Navigating Ethical Tensions in an Evolving Discipline. J Agric Environ Ethics 32, 219–238 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-019-09764-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10806-019-09764-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation