![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/osu-wams-blogs-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com\/blogs.dir\/2961\/files\/2024\/11\/Logo-OSU-Blog-Lab-Web-Site-2024-1.jpeg?w=770&ssl=1\"){kind=logo}
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\nRobert T. Lackey<\/strong><\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Sciences<\/p>\n\n\n\n Oregon State University<\/p>\n\n\n\n Robert.Lackey@oregonstate.edu<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n An especially muddying factor in unraveling ecological policy disputes is identifying the role of religious views in shaping scientific information. These days, religious, ethical, or moral values are often embedded in \u201cscience\u201d to form a type of information that is no longer entirely scientific. I call this type of information Religious Ecology<\/strong>, which is now prevalent even in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Such information superficially resembles Scientific Ecology<\/strong>, but rather than being policy neutral, it incorporates particular religious or ethical assumptions, often in ways that are opaque to the average reader or listener (see figure below for how this happens). Thus, Religious Ecology<\/strong> is normative science, a form of policy advocacy often unrecognized because the embedded and assumed policy preferences are difficult to detect.<\/p>\n\n\n Religious Ecology<\/strong> assumes a set of norms about how humans should live and make decisions about ecological policy issues. After reviewing many peer reviewed scientific articles that exhibit embedded values and policy preferences, I have modeled an analog to the well-known Judeo-Christian Ten Commandments<\/em>. In practice, the Ten Commandments of Religious Ecology<\/em> (see box below) are not rigid, but provide insight into how<\/em> the policy advocate (i.e., the \u201cbeliever\u201d) perceives policy choices and thus why those<\/em> values and policy preferences are embedded in the resulting scientific reporting.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For many scientists, it is perhaps surprising that the word \u201cecology\u201d may be based on these (or other) religious and value-based underpinning rather than science. Religious Ecology<\/strong><\/a> describes the world as it ought<\/em> to be and, therefore, is normative because it biases the information toward particular policy choices. The Ten Commandments of Religious Ecology<\/em> provide commonly embedded value judgments and implied policy preferences for some policy advocates. When these (or other) value-based assertions are embedded in Scientific Ecology<\/strong>, the information shifts to become Religious Ecology<\/strong> (see box below).<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n Of course, many religious and ethical-based philosophies offer their preferred \u201crules\u201d or \u201cguidelines\u201d for ecological policy issues, but within Religious Ecology<\/strong>, the values-based and science-based ideas are intertwined and difficult to separate. Specifically, in ecologically oriented science, at their core, they share some version of the well-known Judeo-Christian Garden of Eden’s Romantic View of Nature<\/em>, wishing humans to live harmoniously with the natural, non-human world. The Garden of Eden was a paradise on Earth, but the fall from Grace began with humans succumbing to temptation and greed \u2014<\/a> and enduring the resulting pollution. The Ten Commandments of Religious Ecology<\/em> similarly delineate a path back to the Garden of Eden, the natural and optimal state of ecosystems. Thus, Religious Ecology <\/strong>is either a form of science<\/em> infused with ethical values or, perhaps more accurately, a religion<\/em> imbued with science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let me illustrate with an example. Consider Commandment #1 and how it is sometimes stealthily embedded in Scientific Ecology<\/strong>. Referring to a piece of land as a \u201cwheat field\u201d is a policy neutral statement of information (i.e., science or a scientific fact). It is the essence of classic Baconian science. In contrast, referring to the same<\/em> field as a \u201cdegraded or disturbed ecosystem\u201d or a \u201chealthy and thriving ecosystem\u201d is not policy neutral because it has an embedded, assumed<\/em> policy preference (i.e., Commandment #1 is accepted as the preferred policy). Nothing has changed scientifically; only the labeling differs. Thus, it is normative science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Frequently, incoming students in my graduate-level ecological policy class are initially unaware of the impact of word choice and subtler forms of normative science. Realistically, should professors expect graduate students (much less undergraduates) in ecology, environmental science, natural resources, fisheries and wildlife, and conservation science to understand issues such as normative science and stealth policy advocacy? Or do they understand the arguments, but choose to advocate their preferred policy preferences, nonetheless? Perhaps a more accurate answer is the observation (paraphrased) from one student,<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cMany scientists across divergent scientific disciplines use their positions to pitch their or their employer\u2019s policy preference, so why should ecologists and other scientists be held to a higher standard?\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Students in this class often accept that this assertion reflects contemporary reality and is, therefore, professionally acceptable. Further, many students also accept the Ten Commandments of Religious Ecology<\/em> as self-evidently true and appropriate for scientific communication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Like other simplified summaries of religious doctrine, nothing in their application is unequivocally absolute or consistent. However, the Ten Commandments of Religious Ecology<\/em> afford insight into how many ecological policy advocates (including professional scientists) tend to embed their <\/em>values in the scientific information they develop and provide. Rarely will such advocates explicitly categorize their scientific<\/em> information as influenced by religious or faith-based values, so \u201cusers\u201d of scientific information must be alert and not assume that all scientists are playing it straight. Perhaps most stick to science, but others intentionally do not. Hence, it is not surprising that public trust in the impartiality of scientists has declined.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I encourage caution when assessing the scientific impartiality of professional ecologists who use their scientific credentials to promote their personal (or their employer\u2019s) policy preferences. For example, without resorting to the Ten Commandments of Religious Ecology<\/em>, nothing in science says that a dam should<\/em> be removed or maintained. A free-flowing river is different ecologically than that same river dammed, but it is not \u201cbetter or worse\u201d without applying a value-based benchmark or baseline (i.e., often one or more of the Ten Commandments of Religious Ecology<\/em>). Consequently, there is no exclusively scientific<\/em> basis for labeling an ecosystem’s condition as \u201chealthy\u201d (or \u201cdegraded\u201d) unless a value or policy preference is applied to scientific information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is easy for readers or listeners inexperienced with policy analysis to interpret \u201cbenchmarks\u201d or \u201cbaselines\u201d presented by scientists as the implicitly preferred<\/em> policy choice when that may not be the scientist’s intent. Such value choices (i.e., healthy, degraded, better, worse) arise outside the scientific enterprise, at least in a democracy. Conversely, concepts like \u201chealthy\u201d are common in medicine because there is general public and political agreement about what constitutes a healthy individual human. Thus, the metaphor of a healthy ecosystem analogous to a healthy individual human<\/em> is weak and misleading. Unlike individual<\/em> humans, ecosystems do not get sick and die unless someone, using specific values and policy preferences, defines the desired, undisturbed, benchmark, or otherwise preferred state of that particular ecosystem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For scientists working on contemporary and highly contested ecological policy issues, sticking to science and policy neutrality requires sustained commitment, but it is the right thing to do. Graduate training, professional mentorship, and institutional standards of practice can help ensure that scientists operate within scientific \u201cgood practices\u201d and avoid becoming just another confusing advocacy voice struggling to be heard by misusing science. The public is best served when scientists (sticking to Scientific Ecology<\/strong>) are honest brokers of scientific information. Conversely, those slipping into Religious Ecology<\/strong> or other value-based policy constructs are working in the realm of policy advocacy.<\/p>\n\n\n Author Info<\/strong>:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Robert T. Lackey<\/a> (Robert.Lackey@oregonstate.edu<\/a>) is a professor of fisheries at Oregon State University, where he teaches a course in ecological policy and mentors graduate students. He was previously deputy director of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency\u2019s 350-person National Environmental Research Laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon, from which he retired in 2008.<\/p>\n\n\n\n ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Robert T. Lackey Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Sciences Oregon State University Robert.Lackey@oregonstate.edu An especially muddying factor in unraveling ecological policy disputes is identifying the role of religious views in shaping scientific information. These days, religious, ethical, or moral values are often embedded in \u201cscience\u201d to form a type of information that is… Continue reading ![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/osu-wams-blogs-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com\/blogs.dir\/2961\/files\/2024\/11\/Religious-Ecology-JPG-Figure-Scientific-vs-Religious-Ecology-Lackey-1.jpg?resize=352%2C268&ssl=1\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/osu-wams-blogs-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com\/blogs.dir\/2961\/files\/2024\/11\/Religious-Ecology-JPG-Figure-Ten-Commandments-Lackey-1.jpg?resize=770%2C796&ssl=1\")
<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/osu-wams-blogs-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com\/blogs.dir\/2961\/files\/2024\/11\/Definitions-of-Key-Words-in-Ecological-Policy-Management-Science-Gray-Lackey-2024-1-scaled.jpg?resize=770%2C1027&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n\n\n