Habitat Program, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA 98501, USA.
Conserv Biol. 2012 Feb;26(1):39-46. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2011.01805.x.
Policy advocacy is an issue regularly debated among conservation scientists. These debates have focused on intentional policy advocacy by scientists, but advocacy can also be unintentional. I define inadvertent policy advocacy as the act of unintentionally expressing personal policy preferences or ethical judgments in a way that is nearly indistinguishable from scientific judgments. A scientist may be well intentioned and intellectually honest but still inadvertently engage in policy advocacy. There are two ways to inadvertently engage in policy advocacy. First, a scientist expresses an opinion that she or he believes is a scientific judgment but it is actually an ethical judgment or personal policy preference. Second, a scientist expresses an opinion that he or she knows is an ethical judgment or personal policy preference but inadvertently fails to effectively communicate the nature of the opinion to policy makers or the public. I illustrate inadvertent advocacy with three examples: recovery criteria in recovery plans for species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, a scientific peer review of a recovery plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), and the International Union for Conservation of Nature's definition of threatened. In each example, scientists expressed ethical judgments or policy preferences, but their value judgments were not identified as such, and, hence, their value judgments were opaque to policy makers and the public. Circumstances suggest their advocacy was inadvertent. I believe conservation scientists must become acutely aware of the line between science and policy and avoid inadvertent policy advocacy because it is professional negligence, erodes trust in scientists and science, and perpetuates an ethical vacuum that undermines the rational political discourse necessary for the evolution of society's values. The principal remedy for inadvertent advocacy is education of conservation scientists in an effort to help them understand how science and values interact to fulfill the mission of conservation science.
政策倡导是保护科学家经常讨论的一个问题。这些争论集中在科学家的有意政策倡导上,但倡导也可能是无意的。我将无意间的政策倡导定义为科学家以几乎与科学判断无法区分的方式无意中表达个人政策偏好或道德判断的行为。科学家可能是出于好意和诚实的,但仍然会无意中参与政策倡导。有两种方法可以无意中参与政策倡导。首先,科学家表达了她或他认为是科学判断的观点,但实际上这是道德判断或个人政策偏好。其次,科学家表达了他或她知道是道德判断或个人政策偏好的观点,但无意中未能有效地向政策制定者或公众传达观点的性质。我用三个例子来说明无意中的倡导:美国濒危物种法案下列出的物种恢复计划中的恢复标准、对北方斑点猫头鹰(Strix occidentalis caurina)恢复计划的科学同行评审以及国际自然保护联盟对受威胁物种的定义。在每个例子中,科学家们表达了道德判断或政策偏好,但他们的价值判断没有被识别为这样,因此,他们的价值判断对政策制定者和公众来说是不透明的。情况表明他们的倡导是无意的。我认为保护科学家必须敏锐地意识到科学与政策之间的界限,并避免无意中的政策倡导,因为这是职业疏忽,削弱了对科学家和科学的信任,并延续了道德真空,破坏了社会价值观演变所需的理性政治话语。防止无意中倡导的主要补救措施是对保护科学家进行教育,以帮助他们了解科学和价值观如何相互作用,以履行保护科学的使命。