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.