Deakin University
Browse
1/1
2 files

Consequences of information suppression in ecological and conservation sciences

journal contribution
posted on 2021-01-01, 00:00 authored by Don DriscollDon Driscoll, G E Garrard, A M Kusmanoff, S Dovers, M Maron, N Preece, R L Pressey, Euan RitchieEuan Ritchie
Suppressing expert knowledge can hide environmentally damaging practices and policies from public scrutiny. We surveyed ecologists and conservation scientists from universities, government, and industry across Australia to understand the prevalence and consequences of suppressing science communication. Government (34%) and industry (30%) respondents reported higher rates of undue interference by employers than did university respondents (5%). Internal communications (29%) and media (28%) were curtailed most, followed by journal articles (11%), and presentations (12%). When university and industry researchers avoided public commentary, this was mainly for fear of media misrepresentation, while government employees were most often constrained by senior management and workplace policy. One third of respondents reported personal suffering related to suppression, including job losses and deteriorating mental health. Substantial reforms are needed, including to codes of practice, and governance of environmental assessments and research, so that scientific advice can be reported openly, in a timely manner and free from interference.

History

Journal

Conservation letters

Volume

14

Issue

1

Season

January/February

Article number

e12757

Pagination

1 - 13

Publisher

John Wiley & Sons

Location

Chichester, Eng.

ISSN

1755-263X

eISSN

1755-263X

Language

eng

Publication classification

C Journal article; C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal