Should Ecological Science Be Ethical
Simon A. Queensborough,L. Comita
DOI: https://doi.org/10.7916/D8XP747R
Abstract:Both scientific and moral communities have identified that current management of the natural environment by humans is unsustainable. How society responds to environmental challenges will likely require a multi-disciplinary approach. Jenkins addresses the contributions that science, religion and ethics can make to resolving complex environmental problems and increasing successful management of ecological systems. While we agree with many of Jenkins’ points, he touches upon three common ideas about science, and ecology in particular, that we argue are often misconstrued: (i) Scientific understanding of current environmental challenges is inadequate due to ‘uncertainty’ in scientific studies; (ii) Ecological scientists are equivalent to environmental managers; and (iii) Scientists should become more like activists and consider social values as drivers. We suggest that these ideas may be unhelpful in interpreting scientific studies and might lead to increasing misrepresentation of science. Furthermore, such perceptions may increase distrust by the general public of scientists who do not adequately separate objective scientific evidence from personal value-judgments. We agree that the scientific method should indeed be ethical, with no room for fraud or deliberate falsification of results, but that the science itself must be objective and non-moral, with scientific evidence unprejudiced by political and social agendas. We recommend that ecologists and managers, as well as ethicists and religious communities, work together in a robust defense of an evidence-based approach to the management and restoration of global ecological systems. Introduction The earth and its systems are undergoing a period of unprecedented rapid physical, chemical and environmental change, caused by human activities.1 These changes have been rigorously documented by scientists and debated by many subsets of society, including moral or religious communities.2 Science is also concerned with predicting the likelihood and consequences of future changes.3 The 1 D.R. Easterling, G.A. Meehl, C. Parmesan, et al. “Climate extremes: Observations, modeling, and impacts,” Science 289 (2000): 2068-2074. J.B.C. Jackson, M.X. Kirby, W.H. Berger, et al. “Historical overfishing and the recent collapse of coastal ecosystems,” Science 293 (2001): 629-638. T.P. Hughes, A.H. Baird, D.R. Bellwood, et al. “Climate change, human impacts, and the resilience of coral reefs,” Science 301 (2003): 929-933. E. Monnin, A. Indermuhle, A. Dallenbach, J. Fluckiger, B. Stauffer, T.F. Stocker, D. Raynaud and J-M. Barnola, “Atmospheric CO2 concentrations over the last glacial termination,” Science 291 (2001): 112-114. 2 Hulme, M. Why We Disagree About Climate Change Understanding Controversy, Inaction and Opportunity. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009). 3 L.R. Iverson and A.M. Prasad, “Predicting abundance of 80 tree species following climate change in the eastern United States,” Ecological Monographs 68 (1998): 465-485. A. Guisan & N.E. Zimmermann, “Predictive habitat distribution models in ecology,” Ecological Modelling 135 (2000): 147-186.