Conservation science and the ethos of restraint
Abstract Despite aiming to make conservation science and practice more effective, many conservationists default to excessive precaution, advocating conservative actions—or even inaction. The field suffers from an understandable aversion to unintended consequences, especially for approaches involving...
| Main Authors: | , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Wiley
2021-04-01
|
| Series: | Conservation Science and Practice |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.381 |
| _version_ | 1818668822990684160 |
|---|---|
| author | Evelyn Brister J. Britt Holbrook Megan J. Palmer |
| author_facet | Evelyn Brister J. Britt Holbrook Megan J. Palmer |
| author_sort | Evelyn Brister |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Abstract Despite aiming to make conservation science and practice more effective, many conservationists default to excessive precaution, advocating conservative actions—or even inaction. The field suffers from an understandable aversion to unintended consequences, especially for approaches involving biotechnology and “next‐generation” interventions. We call this default precautionary attitude among conservationists the ethos of restraint and argue for replacing it with an ethos of responsible conservation action. Loosening the ethos of restraint will require (a) more holistically accounting for comparative risks, benefits, and costs of novel approaches; (b) gathering more data on their consequences; (c) engaging in dialogue about intended consequences and conservation values; and (d) pursuing adaptive implementation strategies. Adopting an ethos of responsible conservation action requires grasping that precaution and proaction are not diametrically opposed attitudes. Instead, we must decide what level of precaution or proaction is warranted, and what to do, on a case‐by‐case basis. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-17T06:42:26Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-26f876bb5201410f8246ed2da5a67ad2 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2578-4854 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-17T06:42:26Z |
| publishDate | 2021-04-01 |
| publisher | Wiley |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Conservation Science and Practice |
| spelling | doaj.art-26f876bb5201410f8246ed2da5a67ad22022-12-21T21:59:49ZengWileyConservation Science and Practice2578-48542021-04-0134n/an/a10.1111/csp2.381Conservation science and the ethos of restraintEvelyn Brister0J. Britt Holbrook1Megan J. Palmer2Philosophy Department Rochester Institute of Technology Rochester New York USADepartment of Humanities New Jersey Institute of Technology Newark New Jersey USADepartment of Bioengineering Stanford University Stanford California USAAbstract Despite aiming to make conservation science and practice more effective, many conservationists default to excessive precaution, advocating conservative actions—or even inaction. The field suffers from an understandable aversion to unintended consequences, especially for approaches involving biotechnology and “next‐generation” interventions. We call this default precautionary attitude among conservationists the ethos of restraint and argue for replacing it with an ethos of responsible conservation action. Loosening the ethos of restraint will require (a) more holistically accounting for comparative risks, benefits, and costs of novel approaches; (b) gathering more data on their consequences; (c) engaging in dialogue about intended consequences and conservation values; and (d) pursuing adaptive implementation strategies. Adopting an ethos of responsible conservation action requires grasping that precaution and proaction are not diametrically opposed attitudes. Instead, we must decide what level of precaution or proaction is warranted, and what to do, on a case‐by‐case basis.https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.381biotechnologyconservation valuesenvironmental ethicsintended consequencesprecautionary principleproactionary principle |
| spellingShingle | Evelyn Brister J. Britt Holbrook Megan J. Palmer Conservation science and the ethos of restraint Conservation Science and Practice biotechnology conservation values environmental ethics intended consequences precautionary principle proactionary principle |
| title | Conservation science and the ethos of restraint |
| title_full | Conservation science and the ethos of restraint |
| title_fullStr | Conservation science and the ethos of restraint |
| title_full_unstemmed | Conservation science and the ethos of restraint |
| title_short | Conservation science and the ethos of restraint |
| title_sort | conservation science and the ethos of restraint |
| topic | biotechnology conservation values environmental ethics intended consequences precautionary principle proactionary principle |
| url | https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.381 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT evelynbrister conservationscienceandtheethosofrestraint AT jbrittholbrook conservationscienceandtheethosofrestraint AT meganjpalmer conservationscienceandtheethosofrestraint |