Centre for Biodiversity and Restoration Ecology, Victoria University of Wellington, P.O. Box 600, Wellington, 6140, New Zealand.
Biodiversity Department, Greater Wellington Regional Council, Wellington, New Zealand.
Conserv Biol. 2019 Aug;33(4):797-802. doi: 10.1111/cobi.13278. Epub 2019 Mar 13.
Science denialism retards evidenced-based policy and practice and should be challenged. It has been a particular concern for mitigating global environmental issues, such as anthropogenic climate change. But allegations of science denialism must also be well founded and evidential or they risk eroding public trust in science and scientists. Recently, 77 published works by scholars, scientists, and science writers were identified as containing invasive species denialism (ISD; i.e., rejection of well-supported facts about invasive species, particularly the global scientific consensus about their negative impacts). We reevaluated 75 of these works but could find no examples of refutation of scientific facts and only 5 articles with text perhaps consistent with one of the 5 characteristics of science denialism. We found, therefore, that allegations of ISD were misplaced. These accusations of science denialism may have arisen because invasion biology defines its subjects-invasive species-based on multiple subjective and normative judgments. Thus, more than other applied sciences its consensus is one of shared values as much as agreed knowledge. Criticisms of invasion biology have largely targeted those subjective and normative judgments and their global imposition, not the knowledge on which the discipline is based. Regrettably, a few invasion biologists have misinterpreted the critique of their values-based consensus as a denial of their science when it is not. To make invasion biology a more robust and widely accepted science and to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings and conflicts, invasion biologists could be more accepting of perspectives originating from other disciplines and more open to values-based critique from scholars and scientists outside their field. This recommendation applies to all conservation sciences, especially those addressing global challenges, because these sciences must serve and be relevant to communities with an extraordinary diversity of cultures and values.
科学否定论阻碍了基于证据的政策和实践，因此应该受到质疑。这对于缓解全球环境问题（如人为气候变化）尤为重要。但是，对科学否定论的指控也必须有充分的依据和证据，否则它们可能会侵蚀公众对科学和科学家的信任。最近，有 77 篇由学者、科学家和科学作家发表的著作被认定为包含了入侵物种否定论（ISD；即拒绝接受有关入侵物种的有力事实，特别是有关其负面影响的全球科学共识）。我们重新评估了其中的 75 篇著作，但没有发现任何反驳科学事实的例子，只有 5 篇文章的文本可能与科学否定论的 5 个特征之一相符。因此，我们认为 ISD 的指控是没有根据的。这些对科学否定论的指控可能是因为入侵生物学根据多个主观和规范的判断来定义其研究对象——入侵物种。因此，与其他应用科学相比，它的共识更多的是共同价值观，而不是公认的知识。对入侵生物学的批评主要针对那些主观和规范的判断及其在全球范围内的实施，而不是该学科所依据的知识。遗憾的是，少数入侵生物学家错误地将对其基于价值观的共识的批评解读为对其科学的否定，而事实并非如此。为了使入侵生物学成为一门更强大、更被广泛接受的科学，并避免不必要的误解和冲突，入侵生物学家可以更加接受来自其他学科的观点，并更加开放地接受来自该领域以外的学者和科学家的基于价值观的批评。这一建议适用于所有保护科学，尤其是那些应对全球挑战的科学，因为这些科学必须为具有极其多样文化和价值观的社区服务，并与这些社区相关。
