![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/osu-wams-blogs-uploads.s3.amazonaws.com\/blogs.dir\/2961\/files\/2025\/08\/Blog-Artwork-Logo.jpg?resize=132%2C130&ssl=1\"){kind=logo}
<\/p>\n\n\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Robert T. Lackey<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Sciences<\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Oregon State University<\/strong><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u221e\u221e\u221e\u221e\u221e\u221e<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/strong><\/a> \u2014 the idea that \u201cnature knows best.\u201d\u00a0 \u00a0Worse, implicitly embedding this worldview into science can easily lead non-scientists into the trap of assuming that \u201cNatural\u201d is preferred to \u201cAltered\u201d from a policy perspective.\u00a0 This often-unrecognized policy preference is that the natural state of the environment is somehow inherently<\/em> preferable to that altered by humans. \u00a0Thus, some scientists conduct their scientific work under the assumption that untouched, natural ecosystems are inherently superior to those changed by human activity. \u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.\u00a0 Is it any surprise that many do not trust scientists (and the entire scientific enterprise) to \u201cplay it straight\u201d concerning scientific information?<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let me be unambiguous: science should<\/em> provide facts that help inform policy choices. Science should not have embedded opinions within its conclusions. However, in today\u2019s ecologically-oriented policy debates, science is often misused or misinterpreted \u2014 sometimes even by scientists themselves. This misuse can influence decisions by blurring the line between scientific evidence and personal values.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, what is science, exactly, and how does it differ from other sources of knowledge? At its core, it\u2019s the pursuit of knowledge through systematic<\/em>, reproducible <\/em>methods. Science doesn\u2019t imply right or wrong, nor what choice should be made \u2014 it only describes what is<\/em>. Scientists, similarly, are those who gather and interpret this information. But having a scientific degree doesn’t automatically make someone\u2019s opinions scientific. And scientists, like anyone else, carry personal policy biases and values that can unintentionally seep into their work.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Let\u2019s explore how this happens using three contemporary examples gleaned from the scientific literature.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Example 1: Ecosystem Management<\/strong><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Ecosystem management implicitly aims to preserve or restore ecosystems, but it is often loaded with terms such as degradation<\/em>, health<\/em>, and impoverishment<\/em>. These words imply or suggest that change or disturbance is inherently harmful and unnatural. Commonly, the line between describing reality and prescribing what should<\/em> happen gets blurred. From a broad suite of possible policy choices, which one best meets society\u2019s 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<\/em> 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Example 2: Notions of “Integrity”<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The term ecological integrity<\/em> often appears in environmental discussions. \u00a0Technically, a “high” integrity ecosystem is typically filled with native <\/em>species and minimal<\/em> human disturbance. \u00a0A purely technical definition in a scientific<\/em> sense. But for most people, \u201cintegrity\u201d 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<\/em>. \u00a0If untouched ecosystems are seen as good, then any human impact starts to look bad, even when the science itself doesn\u2019t support that conclusion.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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<\/em> push society toward any particular state of that ecosystem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Example 3: Ecological Restoration Goals<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Ecological restoration presents another area where scientists may unintentionally fall into the trap of assuming that \u201cnatural is good\u201d and \u201caltered is bad.\u201d What era should society aim to restore ecosystems \u2014 before European settlement, before industrialization, or some more recent period? Who should decide?<\/p>\n\n\n\n There\u2019s no scientific answer to this; \u00a0it is a choice based largely on values. \u00a0Scientists can predict what will likely happen if a particular target is selected, but selecting <\/em>that target is inherently political. \u00a0Similarly, 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Slippery Slope of Policy Advocacy<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Scientists don\u2019t always realize when they\u2019ve crossed the boundary from informing<\/em> to advocating<\/em>. 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<\/em> be \u2014 rather than informing choices with unbiased data \u2014 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n That doesn\u2019t 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\u2019s possible and what the consequences might be \u2014 it does not decide what is right.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A Call for Clarity<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Ultimately, the push for \u201cnatural is better\u201d 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 \u2014 it should help society understand the options and outcomes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n 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.<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u221e\u221e\u221e\u221e\u221e\u221e<\/p>\n\n\n\n Author Info: <\/strong>Robert T. Lackey <<\/em>Robert.Lackey@oregonstate.edu<\/em><\/a>> 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\u2019s 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.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Robert T. Lackey Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and Conservation Sciences Oregon State University \u221e\u221e\u221e\u221e\u221e\u221e 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 \u2014 the idea that \u201cnature knows best.\u201d\u00a0 \u00a0Worse, implicitly embedding… Continue reading