Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Sciences
Oregon State University
∞∞∞∞∞∞
In disciplines such as environmental science, fisheries and wildlife management, and environmental management, I am concerned that the scientific enterprise has become captive to a particular worldview, a preferred policy preference — the idea that “nature knows best.” Worse, implicitly embedding this worldview into science can easily lead non-scientists into the trap of assuming that “Natural” is preferred to “Altered” from a policy perspective. This often-unrecognized policy preference is that the natural state of the environment is somehow inherently preferable to that altered by humans. Thus, some scientists conduct their scientific work under the assumption that untouched, natural ecosystems are inherently superior to those changed by human activity.
While this notion may seem intuitive (or even morally appealing), it transforms science from a reasonably objective tool into a subtle form of policy advocacy. Is it any surprise that many do not trust scientists (and the entire scientific enterprise) to “play it straight” concerning scientific information?
Let me be unambiguous: science should provide facts that help inform policy choices. Science should not have embedded opinions within its conclusions. However, in today’s ecologically-oriented policy debates, science is often misused or misinterpreted — sometimes even by scientists themselves. This misuse can influence decisions by blurring the line between scientific evidence and personal values.
The danger is real. Society does face many tough choices, and the policy tradeoffs are often highly contested. One well-known current example is balancing salmon policy priorities against hydropower baseload power. For such policy issues, it is crucial to distinguish between information rooted in evidence and that which is colored by personal belief. Without the clarity of clearly stated policy tradeoffs, science loses its credibility and its value as a neutral source of information.
So, what is science, exactly, and how does it differ from other sources of knowledge? At its core, it’s the pursuit of knowledge through systematic, reproducible methods. Science doesn’t imply right or wrong, nor what choice should be made — it only describes what is. Scientists, similarly, are those who gather and interpret this information. But having a scientific degree doesn’t automatically make someone’s opinions scientific. And scientists, like anyone else, carry personal policy biases and values that can unintentionally seep into their work.
Let’s explore how this happens using three contemporary examples gleaned from the scientific literature.
Example 1: Ecosystem Management
Ecosystem management implicitly aims to preserve or restore ecosystems, but it is often loaded with terms such as degradation, health, and impoverishment. These words imply or suggest that change or disturbance is inherently harmful and unnatural. Commonly, the line between describing reality and prescribing what should happen gets blurred. From a broad suite of possible policy choices, which one best meets society’s policy goals and has a good chance of meeting those goals? Terms commonly found in the ecosystem management scientific literature often imply that native species are simply assumed to be preferable (policy-wise) to non-native ones, even though that is a societal choice, not a scientific fact. Simply put, whether a species is considered harmful or beneficial varies depending on the policy context and public values, not a scientific principle.
Example 2: Notions of “Integrity”
The term ecological integrity often appears in environmental discussions. Technically, a “high” integrity ecosystem is typically filled with native species and minimal human disturbance. A purely technical definition in a scientific sense. But for most people, “integrity” implies goodness or high moral standards. Thus, this language subtly suggests that implicitly natural ecosystems are better, turning a purported scientific descriptor into a value judgment. If untouched ecosystems are seen as good, then any human impact starts to look bad, even when the science itself doesn’t support that conclusion.
Society may well choose to maintain ecosystems in a state unaffected by humans, but scientific inputs to making that policy choice should be policy neutral. Science should not subtly push society toward any particular state of that ecosystem.
Example 3: Ecological Restoration Goals
Ecological restoration presents another area where scientists may unintentionally fall into the trap of assuming that “natural is good” and “altered is bad.” What era should society aim to restore ecosystems — before European settlement, before industrialization, or some more recent period? Who should decide?
There’s no scientific answer to this; it is a choice based largely on values. Scientists can predict what will likely happen if a particular target is selected, but selecting that target is inherently political. Similarly, society may decide which species are more valuable or which habitats deserve protection, but those decisions should not be made under the guise of scientific neutrality.
The Slippery Slope of Policy Advocacy
Scientists don’t always realize when they’ve crossed the boundary from informing to advocating. It might be as subtle as the words they choose or the assumptions baked into their models. Once scientists (or their scientific information) start implying what policy should be — rather than informing choices with unbiased data — it risks scientists becoming just another voice in the policy advocacy arena. This damages public trust in science and undermines its usefulness in decision-making.
We must be vigilant. Objective science is essential in complex policy debates because it offers clarity in emotionally charged, politically divisive issues. When scientists let their values influence their presentation of facts, even unintentionally, they jeopardize the integrity of their profession.
That doesn’t mean scientists do not care about value-driven policy questions. Some enter the environmental and natural resource fields because they feel deeply about nature and conservation, but that passion must be separated from the factual analysis they offer. Science informs what’s possible and what the consequences might be — it does not decide what is right.
A Call for Clarity
Ultimately, the push for “natural is better” reflects a cultural or policy bias, not a scientific truth. Both pristine and altered ecosystems have value depending on societal goals. Science should not steer those goals — it should help society understand the options and outcomes.
In a well-functioning democracy, good science provides the foundation for informed choices driven by the wishes of the citizenry. The scientific enterprise is not the final word but rather an input. And to be useful, scientists must be a trusted, impartial voice. To help preserve that trust, science must remain neutral, accurate, and transparent. If the boundary between scientific evidence and policy advocacy becomes unclear, society risks losing the very thing that makes science valuable in policy deliberations.
∞∞∞∞∞∞
Author Info: Robert T. Lackey <Robert.Lackey@oregonstate.edu> is a professor of fisheries at Oregon State University, where he teaches a graduate course in ecological policy and mentors graduate students. He was previously deputy director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s 350-person National Environmental Research Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon, from which he retired in 2008. He has also worked on assignments in Washington, DC for the U.S. Department of the Interior and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Hey Bob, this definitely highlights the theme of your recent article (Lackey 2025). And given recent critiques like Zhang (2023) & a blatantly sociopolitical-advocacy paper (Isenberg and Brauer 2024), I now see that your long-term hand-wringing about such advocacy was prophetic.
Anyway, it’s an important precaution for those who become bioinstitutes in whatever job field they enter. Indeed, whether it’s academia, gov’t, consulting, or NGOs, there are rules to advocate scientifically, the main factor being transparency in how we came to our conclusions (Hughes et al. 2021). This is basic logic; if premise A is accepted, then conclusion A makes sense. Now it’s up to us to convince people that premise A makes sense, or if not, then we should negotiate in optimization style. Often, people assume that if a little of something is good, then way more must be even better, but nature (or other things like social justice) really isn’t linear, given conflicting needs, e.g., in protecting multiple imperiled spp. that may have divergent needs. I’ve had to balance different fish spp. & life stage needs for instream-flow setting (Vadas and Weigmann 1993; Vadas 2000). And your new paper (Lackey 2025) definitely emphasizes that we should address mgmt. tradeoffs like that.
References
Hughes, R.M., and seven coauthors. 2021. Why advocate – and how? Pages 177-197 in D. DellaSala (ed.). Conservation Science and Advocacy for a Planet in Crisis: Speaking Truth to Power. Elsevier. Cambridge, MA (cf. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128129883000156).
Isenberg, N., and M. Brauer. 2024. Diversity and inclusion have greater support than most Americans think. Scientific Reports [online] 14: 28616 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-76761-8).
Lackey, R.T. 2025. The emergence of religious ecology. Fisheries, in press (https://academic.oup.com/fisheries/advance-article/doi/10.1093/fshmag/vuaf046/8149259).
Vadas, R.L. Jr. 2000. Instream-flow needs for anadromous salmonids and lamprey on
the Pacific coast, with special reference to the Pacific Southwest.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 64: 331-358 (cf. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1006486920036).
Vadas, R.L. Jr., and D.L. Weigmann. 1993. The concept of instream flow and its relevance to drought management in the James River basin. Virginia Water Resources Research Center Bulletin 178: 78 pp. (https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/handle/10919/46625).
Zhang, F.J. 2023. Political endorsement by Nature and trust in scientific expertise during COVID-19. Nature Human Behaviour 7: 696–706 (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-023-01537-5).
But having said that, I still devote my life to protecting nature, but I’ll cont. to do that in a scientific way that doesn’t ignore other people’s needs; holistic thinking isn’t done enough. The important thing is to be transparent about your goals.
Bob,
You have produced an outstanding paper. But like so many scientific issues that inevitably lead to policy decision., The careful reader will go away with more questions that were seemingly raised, as you state in the lead-up text to the chart on Religious Ecology. And isn’t policy-making a bit like science – one step forward and two steps backward at times after trying to implement policy and then living / managing with the disappointing or unplanned-for outcomes? Your chart represents a slippery slope to me as it intimates “faith” and that is a no-go zone for many scientists because there is no clear solution or response to many of the underlying questions raised once religion enters the fray. Faith is perhaps a bit less problematic, but still dubious in terms of how it is processed in a scientific context.
I just finished reading (twice) “The Road to Wisdom: on Truth, Science, Faith, and Trust” by Francis S. Collins (2024). The frustration I felt after trying to understand / embrace(?) the bridges he builds so easily and “logically” between science and religion / faith prompted me to pull E. O. Wilson’s “Creation” off my bookshelf (2006); a book I love but haven’t consulted in years. As a non-believer, agnostic on a good day, of course Wilson’s text is much clearer, but what has made me near crazy is the fact that so many really brilliant people from all walks of scientific and policy life have embraced religion – and I am not referring to spirituality, but organized religion; you refer to that as “embedded values”. I guess, I will just have to accept my confusion as one of the major shortfalls in life.
I love “commandments” 8 and 10, particularly 8 – the most abused excuse for delay in the global policy arena ever. Specific comments follow:
Box 1 comments:
Point 4: The increasing demand for rural (urban – forest fringe) property and the risk of encounters between humans – predators.
Point 4: I would have added Indian fishing rights.
Point 6: And the inherent conflicts with treaty fishing rights and the “rights others feel are firmly established – pumping /. irrigation rights, etc..
Point 7: The public will never understand nor endorse this policy in my opinion.
Point 8: Huge ethical implications as well as Treaty and Accord implications for the global north.
Point 10: It is only a matter of time before conflict will be the result of near-shore mining rights. And we really do not understand the implications of the Law of the Sea and deep-ocean mining. Of course the U.S. like so many nations, violates agreements, treaties, accords, etc. when it serves their national interests, even in areas beyond the exclusive economic zone.
Box 2: As noted above … these “commandments” are the ones that should be required to be displayed in every public school, if for no other reason than to engender heated debate (a near impossibility at the high school level). You may not know it, but in addition to my OSU graduate students, I substitute teach in both of our high schools (advanced Spanish, English as a second language for Spanish speakers, natural science and wood shop). And while our schools are fairly liberal, the rules of the teaching game change with each year. I now have to pass 17 on-line and/or in-person courses every year (everything from drug use to child abuse to bullying, etc. etc.) to maintain my teaching credential and that now includes “active shooter training”. So given that last one, it is any wonder that ecology doesn’t necessarily rise to the number one priority?
Of course you realize that the “commandments” you elaborated, can be countered by those who “know” that humans are each made in the image and likeness of God and therefore can and should “multiply and subdue the earth”. In this context, every plant or animal species is here to serve us and for no other reason, so as Wilson notes when we lose a few thousand species of ants, who cares besides a few wacko scientists? And even Wilson wasn’t certain of the ecological benefit of “fire ants !”
Box 3:
As you probably know, I co-authored a book on global environmental policy which includes a several thousand word dictionary. I got so tired of hearing a new diplomat with no environmental or scientific background drag an international meeting back decades with dumb questions, “what is sustainability. development” etc., that I finally decided to undertake this writing project. It is published by Earthscan, UK by Saunier and Meganck.
I could write pages on the definitions you presented, but I will refrain from what could easily turn into a diatribe.
Finally, I really like how you ended this piece, opening the pandora’s box of what constitutes a “healthy” environment. Again, I could go on, but I have undoubtedly taken too much of your time already.
Rich Meganck
The big thing is to use creative negotiations that achieve “win-win” benefits when possible:
Fisher, R., W.L. Ury, and B. Patton. 2011. Getting to yes: negotiating agreement without giving in. 3rd ed. Penguin Books. London, England. 204 pp. (cf. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/324551/getting-to-yes-by-roger-fisher-and-william-ury).
That may lead to semi-natural (“normative”) conditions at best for nature in urbanized areas, but that’s better than nothing (although I know Bob L. has long disliked that idea, too). But if someone is more concerned about human dev’t than nature, they prob. shouldn’t try to be a biological scientist anyway.
It’s a thoughtful point you raise about the tendency to assume “natural” is always the preferred option in policy. From an ecological protection perspective, I believe the key is not whether something is purely natural or engineered, but whether it reduces long-term harm to the environment and promotes resilience.
For example, renewable technologies like solar-integrated **[portable power stations] may not be “natural” in the strict sense, but they allow people to cut back on fossil fuel generators, lower emissions, and minimize noise pollution in sensitive ecosystems.
In many cases, the most effective environmental policies are those that blend science-based innovation with ecological awareness—finding solutions that protect biodiversity while meeting real human needs. Balancing these priorities may be the best way to avoid the trap you mentioned and achieve sustainable outcomes.
This is why I disagree w/ Bob L. re: the importance of normative sci., which is to achieve semi-natural conditions in the face of human constraints (that we applied scientists do have to take into acct.). This should lead to less unpleasant surprises than engineering something totally new, which can be classified as techno-arrogance (sensu Meffe 1992).
Meffe, G.K. 1992. Techno arrogance and halfway technologies: salmon hatcheries on the Pacific Coast of North America. Conservation Biology 6: 350 354 (cf. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2386035).
Bob, I just opened your blog and found out immediately that I commented on your forthcoming article on Religious Ecology (which you provided an advance copy of to me) and not the current statement on the blog. So sorry. Most will judge me as not being able to read. So I will now read what is on your blog and comment on it. Rich
The 2 blogs are highly related, Richard, which I connected in my own comments.
Bob, I am now commenting on your recent blog posting and not on the advance copy of the article on religious ecology. Please excuse my earlier posting.
I feel I have been able to look at most environmental or ‘natural’ issues fairly neutrally, but with more than the usual dose of scientific skepticism and policy neutrality — in the interest of preserving exactly what you are writing about…preserving “good science” as information or knowledge useful for then making policy and decisions. So, I have often raised eyebrows with friends and colleagues, when I was not automatically enthusiastic about preserving and protecting biodiversity in all situations; or taking out dams in rivers; or protecting wetlands everywhere just because they are natural and biodiverse and provide ecosystem functions (which we are led to believe are always good science and policy). I have to admit that the righteous harangues of the most extreme environmentalists bored me to tears, still do.
The population issue is however the one most difficult issues impacting all other investment decisions – both in presenting and applying science. Many of us grouse and whine about 8B people destroying our favorite old earth. But folks simply are not interested in having any really tough debate about what population levels are OK, should be allowed or promoted, etc, given supposedly limited resources. What scares the me is what will happen when fusion power becomes widely available at the household level, with essentially unlimited electrical power to run everything —- ‘development’ so far has been just child play!