War and Peace and Conservation Biology

War and Peace and Conservation Biology Abstract: Since its inception, conservation biology has been, like medicine, a mission‐oriented field, its mission being to preserve the Earth's biodiversity. Unlike medicine, however, conservation biology has no regular, systematically employed mechanisms in place for monitoring the success or failure of its efforts. My appraisal of papers published in the first three issues of volume 13 of Conservation Biology indicates that the majority of research in the discipline yields more descriptions and recommendations than actual conservation achievements. This does not appear to be a problem of motivation or the quality of our science. We have made undeniable advances in our understanding of conservation biology, but this has not produced comparable conservation results, in part because the forces causing the extinction of species and the disruption of ecosystems often have little to do with biology. Have we undertaken a task whose completion lies beyond the power of our science and technology? In War and Peace, Leo Tolstoy used the failure of Napoleon's invasion of Russia to examine the idea that science (expertise) and reason simply cannot control the great events of the world, which are inherently too complex to be managed by these methods. The twentieth‐century philosopher Isaiah Berlin largely agrees but takes a more moderate position: he explains why it is sometimes possible to apply reason to the vast problems that confront us and achieve the desired results. By analogy, in conservation biology we can achieve conservation objectives, but we must give up the self‐serving belief that an increase in our scientific knowledge by itself will always move us toward effective conservation. To help identify the conservation strategies that work, conservation biology must close critical feedback loops by emulating medicine and regularly monitoring the effectiveness of its research and recommendations and by understanding the place of its work in the life of the community. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Conservation Biology Wiley

War and Peace and Conservation Biology

Conservation Biology, Volume 14 (1) – Feb 1, 2000

Loading next page...
 
/lp/wiley/war-and-peace-and-conservation-biology-fDY6A7Aa00
Publisher
Wiley
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 Wiley Subscription Services, Inc., A Wiley Company
ISSN
0888-8892
eISSN
1523-1739
DOI
10.1046/j.1523-1739.2000.99325.x
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract: Since its inception, conservation biology has been, like medicine, a mission‐oriented field, its mission being to preserve the Earth's biodiversity. Unlike medicine, however, conservation biology has no regular, systematically employed mechanisms in place for monitoring the success or failure of its efforts. My appraisal of papers published in the first three issues of volume 13 of Conservation Biology indicates that the majority of research in the discipline yields more descriptions and recommendations than actual conservation achievements. This does not appear to be a problem of motivation or the quality of our science. We have made undeniable advances in our understanding of conservation biology, but this has not produced comparable conservation results, in part because the forces causing the extinction of species and the disruption of ecosystems often have little to do with biology. Have we undertaken a task whose completion lies beyond the power of our science and technology? In War and Peace, Leo Tolstoy used the failure of Napoleon's invasion of Russia to examine the idea that science (expertise) and reason simply cannot control the great events of the world, which are inherently too complex to be managed by these methods. The twentieth‐century philosopher Isaiah Berlin largely agrees but takes a more moderate position: he explains why it is sometimes possible to apply reason to the vast problems that confront us and achieve the desired results. By analogy, in conservation biology we can achieve conservation objectives, but we must give up the self‐serving belief that an increase in our scientific knowledge by itself will always move us toward effective conservation. To help identify the conservation strategies that work, conservation biology must close critical feedback loops by emulating medicine and regularly monitoring the effectiveness of its research and recommendations and by understanding the place of its work in the life of the community.

Journal

Conservation BiologyWiley

Published: Feb 1, 2000

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 18 million articles from more than
15,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Search

Query the DeepDyve database, plus search all of PubMed and Google Scholar seamlessly

Organize

Save any article or search result from DeepDyve, PubMed, and Google Scholar... all in one place.

Access

Get unlimited, online access to over 18 million full-text articles from more than 15,000 scientific journals.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve

Freelancer

DeepDyve

Pro

Price

FREE

$49/month
$360/year

Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed

Create folders to
organize your research

Export folders, citations

Read DeepDyve articles

Abstract access only

Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles

Print

20 pages / month

PDF Discount

20% off