Title
Roles for scientific societies to engage with conservation policy
Author(s)
Reed, Sarah E.;Thomas, Sarah L.;Bednarek, Angela T.;DellaSala, Dominick A.;Evans, Megan C.;Lundquist, Carolyn;Mascia, Michael B.;McPherson, Tsitsi Y.;Watson, James E. M.
Published
2018
Publisher
Conservation Biology
Abstract
Science and decision making can influence one another at several stages in the policy process. Scientists raise new issues for policy makers, policy needs shape research programs, scientific knowledge informs policy decisions, or research results are used to support or challenge established policies (Rudd 2011). Institutional arrangements that facilitate the integration of science and decision making include training and professional exchanges for individual scientists and conservation practitioners (Jenkins et al. 2012), formal linkages between research and management institutions (Cook et al. 2013), and boundary organizations that specialize in the science–policy interface (Bednarek et al. 2015). Careful consideration of how best to integrate science and policy is especially important given the current political climate, in which the role of science in public discourse is hotly debated around the world (Carroll et al. 2017).
Integrating science and policy is critical for achieving the goals of many nongovernmental organizations, the Society for Conservation Biology (SCB) in particular. Similar to other scientific societies (Jasanoff et al. 1997; Kissling-Naf 2009; Palmer 2012), SCB is considering the organizational structure, staff, and member services needed to meet its strategic goal to increase the application of science to policy and natural resource management. To support its planning, the society engaged an independent consultant (S.L.T.) to conduct a strategic analysis of SCB's future engagement in global conservation policy (Thomas 2016). This analysis involved conducting semistructured interviews of 28 conservation policy experts from around the globe, representing a variety of institutions and including several past and current SCB leaders, as well as outside experts. In response to open-ended questions, interviewees identified one or more possible roles (policy advocate, science broker, science networker, thought leader) for SCB to engage in conservation policy, roles that are relevant for other professional societies aiming to advance evidenced-based decision making.
Access Full Text
A full-text copy of this article may be available. Please email the WCS Library to request.
![]()
Back
PUB24181