Since the time that I was a young graduate student, there
have been constant calls for ecologists to communicate more with the
public and policy makers (Norton 1998, Ludwig et
al. 2001). The impetus for these calls is easy to understand –we are facing
serious threats to the maintenance of biodiversity and ecosystem health, and
ecologists have the knowledge and facts that are needed to shape public policy.
To some, it is unconscionable that ecologists have not done more advocacy,
while others see a need to better educate ecologists in communication
strategies. While the reluctance for some ecologists to engage in public
communication could be due to a lack of skills that training could overcome,
the majority likely has had a deeper unease. Like all academics, ecologists
have many demands on their time, but are evaluated by research output. Adding
another priority to their already long list of priorities can seem
overwhelming. More fundamentally, many ecologists are in the business of
expanding our understanding of the world. They see themselves as objective
scientists adding to global knowledge. To these ‘objectivists’, getting
involved in policy debates, or becoming advocates, undermines their
objectivity.
Regardless of these concerns, a number of ecologists have
decided that public communication is an important part of their
responsibilities. Ecologists now routinely sit on the boards of different
organizations, give public lectures, write books and articles for the public, work
more on applied problems, and testify before governmental committees. Part of
this shift comes from organizations, such as the Nature Conservancy, which have
become large, sophisticated entities with communication departments. But, the
working academic ecologist likely talks with more journalists and public groups
than in the past.
The question remains: has this increased emphasis on
communication yielded any changes in public perception or policy decisions. As
someone who has spent time in elementary school classrooms teaching kids about
pollinators and conservation, the level of environmental awareness in both the
educators and children surprises me. More telling are surprising calls for
policy shifts from governmental organizations. Here in Canada, morale has been low because of a federal government that has not prioritized science or conservation. However signals from international bodies and the US seem to be
promising for the ability of science to positively influence science.
Two such policy calls are extremely telling. Firstly, the
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which includes the governments of
Mexico, Canada, and the USA, which normally deals with economic initiatives and
disagreements, announced that they will form a committee to explore measures to protect monarch butterflies. They will consider instituting toxin-free zones,
where the spraying of chemicals will be prohibited, as well as the construction
of a milkweed corridor from Canada to Mexico. NAFTA made this announcement because
of declining monarch numbers and calls from scientists for a coordinated
strategy.
The second example is the call from 11 US senators to combat the spread of Asian carp. Asian carp have invaded a number of major rivers in
the US, and have their spread has been of major concern to scientists. The 11
senators have taken this scientific concern seriously, requesting federal money
and that the Army Corps of Engineers devise a way to stop the Asian carp
spread.
There seems to be promising anecdotal evidence that issues
of scientific concern are influencing policy decisions. This signals a
potential shift; maybe scientists are winning the public perception and policy
war. But the war is by no means over. There are still major issues (e.g.,
climate change) that require more substantial policy action. Scientists,
especially those who are effective and engaged, need to continue to communicate
with public and policy audiences. Every scientifically informed policy decision
should be seen as a signal of the willingness of audiences to listening
to scientists and that communicating science can work.
References
Ludwig D.,
Mangel M. & Haddad B. (2001). ECOLOGY, CONSERVATION, AND PUBLIC POLICY. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics,
32, 481-517.
Norton, B. G. 1998. IMPROVING ECOLOGICAL COMMUNICATION: THE
ROLE OF ECOLOGISTS IN ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY FORMATION. Ecological Applications
8:350–364
