Openly accessible

Defending the scientific integrity of conservation-policy processes

Carroll, Carlos, Hartl, Brett, Goldman, Gretchen T., Rohlf, Daniel J., Treves, Adrian, Kerr, Jeremy T., Ritchie, Euan, Kingsford, Richard T., Gibbs, Katherine E., Maron, Martine and Watson, James E. M. 2017, Defending the scientific integrity of conservation-policy processes, Conservation biology, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 967-975, doi: 10.1111/cobi.12958.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
ritchie-defendingthe-2017.pdf Published version application/pdf 1.30MB 106

Title Defending the scientific integrity of conservation-policy processes
Author(s) Carroll, Carlos
Hartl, Brett
Goldman, Gretchen T.
Rohlf, Daniel J.
Treves, Adrian
Kerr, Jeremy T.
Ritchie, EuanORCID iD for Ritchie, Euan
Kingsford, Richard T.
Gibbs, Katherine E.
Maron, Martine
Watson, James E. M.
Journal name Conservation biology
Volume number 31
Issue number 5
Start page 967
End page 975
Total pages 9
Publisher Wiley-Blackwell
Place of publication London, Eng.
Publication date 2017-10
ISSN 0888-8892
Keyword(s) endangered species act
external peer review
science communication
scientific advocacy
defensa científica
ley de especies en peligro
revisión de colegas externos
Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Biodiversity Conservation
Environmental Sciences
Biodiversity & Conservation
Environmental Sciences & Ecology
Summary Government agencies faced with politically controversial decisions often discount or ignore scientific information, whether from agency staff or nongovernmental scientists. Recent developments in scientific integrity (the ability to perform, use, communicate, and publish science free from censorship or political interference) in Canada, Australia, and the United States demonstrate a similar trajectory. A perceived increase in scientific‐integrity abuses provokes concerted pressure by the scientific community, leading to efforts to improve scientific‐integrity protections under a new administration. However, protections are often inconsistently applied and are at risk of reversal under administrations publicly hostile to evidence‐based policy. We compared recent challenges to scientific integrity to determine what aspects of scientific input into conservation policy are most at risk of political distortion and what can be done to strengthen safeguards against such abuses. To ensure the integrity of outbound communications from government scientists to the public, we suggest governments strengthen scientific integrity policies, include scientists’ right to speak freely in collective‐bargaining agreements, guarantee public access to scientific information, and strengthen agency culture supporting scientific integrity. To ensure the transparency and integrity with which information from nongovernmental scientists (e.g., submitted comments or formal policy reviews) informs the policy process, we suggest governments broaden the scope of independent reviews, ensure greater diversity of expert input and transparency regarding conflicts of interest, require a substantive response to input from agencies, and engage proactively with scientific societies. For their part, scientists and scientific societies have a responsibility to engage with the public to affirm that science is a crucial resource for developing evidence‐based policy and regulations in the public interest.
Language eng
DOI 10.1111/cobi.12958
Field of Research 05 Environmental Sciences
06 Biological Sciences
07 Agricultural And Veterinary Sciences
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
ERA Research output type C Journal article
Copyright notice ©2017, The Authors
Free to Read? Yes
Use Rights Creative Commons Attribution licence
Persistent URL

Connect to link resolver
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact

Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 17 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 19 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 365 Abstract Views, 110 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Fri, 18 Aug 2017, 19:04:47 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact