Original Post by Devon Yuwiler:

The roles of “pure scientists,” “science arbiters,” and “honest broker” all, in theory, present the scientific data without advocating (Wilhere 2016, 255). I find the ability to separate personal goals with science the least likely for the honest broker, who may not recognize their own bias when presenting interpretations. Even so, I think recognizing one’s own bias would be the key difficulty for all.

As for the fourth category, the advocates, I think third-degree advocacy seems to straddle the line between scientific interpretation and advocacy best. In third-degree advocacy, Wilhere (2016, 255) states that “a scientist explains his or her preferred policy and its merits but does not actively attempt to convince politicians, policy makers, or the public to adopt the preferred policy.” By acknowledging one’s preferred policy, but not trying to push it, scientists can express their interpretation(s) without expressly manipulating the results to their desired policy outcomes.

References

Wilhere, G. F. 2016. The role of scientists in statutory interpretation of the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology, 31, No. 2, 252–260.

My Comment:

Hi Devon,

Great depiction of Wilhere’s account regarding the role scientists play in the interpretation of the ESA! I agree, it difficult is it to straddle the line between scientific interpretation and advocacy due to bias that may be hard for scientists to even recognize. There are scientists who have good intentions to design the most objective studies and want to present raw information. However, since they have so much passion for the field, and often the specialization, they have been working in for 20+ years, it is difficult not to advocate for a particular species they care about. I agree, it is easier for a scientists to recognize ways they are actively attempting to convince politicians, policy makers, or the public to adopt the preferred policy. Further, in order to acknowledge their honest position on the issues, scientists can take a look at the stakeholders they are connected with.

Reference:

Wilhere, G. F. 2016. The role of scientists in statutory interpretation of the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Conservation Biology, 31, No. 2, 252–260.