Science, scientists, and policy advocacy

Conservation Biology

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 12-17

  Lackey, Robert T ^a  

^a U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADVOCACY; CONSERVATION PLANNING; ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY; POLICY DEVELOPMENT; POLICY MAKING; SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY;

CONSUMER ADVOCACY; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION; ETHICS; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; METHODOLOGY; PERSONNEL; POLICY; REVIEW; SCIENCE;

COMMUNICATION; CONSERVATION OF NATURAL RESOURCES; CONSUMER ADVOCACY; PUBLIC POLICY; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; SCIENCE;

EID: 33846987116     PISSN: 08888892     EISSN: 15231739     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00639.x     Document Type: Review

References (30)

1. Armstrong, F. T. 2002. Ways to make analysis relevant but not prescriptive. Studies in Intelligence 46:37-43.
2. Béné, C. 2005. The good, the bad, and the ugly: discourse, policy controversies, and the role of science in the politics of shrimp farming development. Development Policy Review 23:585-614.
3. Boni, L., and K. L. Womack. 2003. Wall Street research: will new rules change its usefulness? Financial Analysts Journal 59:25-29.
4. Caldwell, P. 2005. Courting the expert: clash of culture? British Journal of Haematology 129:730-733.
5. Cohn, J. P. 2005. After the divorce: improving science at federal wildlife agencies. BioScience 55:10-14.
6. Doremus, H. 2005. Science plays defense: natural resource management in the Bush Administration. Ecology Law Quarterly 32:249-306.
7. Doremus, H., and A. D. Tarlock. 2005. Science, judgment, and controversy in natural resource regulation. Public Land and Resources Law Review 26:1-37.
8. Freyfogle, E. T., and J. L. Newton. 2002. Putting science in its place. Conservation Biology 16:863-873.
9. Hunter, M. L. 1996. Benchmarks for managing ecosystems: are human activities natural? Conservation Biology 10:695-697.
10. Karr, J. R. 2006. When government ignores science, scientists should speak up. BioScience 56:287-288.
11. Lach, D. L., P. C. List, B. S. Steel, and B. A. Schindler. 2003. Advocacy and credibility of ecological scientists in resource decision making: a regional study. BioScience 53:170-178.
12. Lackey, R. T. 2003. Appropriate use of ecosystem health and normative science in ecological policy. Pages 175-186 in D. J. Rapport, W. L. Lasley, D. E. Rolston, N.O. Nielsen, C.O. Qualset, and A. B. Damania, editors. Managing for healthy ecosystems. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
13. Lackey, R. T. 2004. Normative science. Fisheries 29:38-39.
14. Lackey, R. T. 2006. Axioms of ecological policy. Fisheries 31:286-290.
15. Marris, E. 2006. Should conservation biologists push policies? Nature 442:13.
16. Matsuda, B. M. 1997. Conservation biology, values, and advocacy. Conservation Biology 11:1449-1450.
17. McCoy, N. H., and S. Atwood. 2005. Flaws in Orr's laws (and the paradigm that produced them): an abbreviated response. Conservation Biology 19:1318-1320.
18. Meine, C., M. Soule, and R. Noss. 2006. "A mission-driven discipline": the growth of conservation biology. Conservation Biology 20:631-651.
19. Mills, T. J. 2000. Position advocacy by scientists risks scientific credibility and may be unethical. Northwest Science 74:165-167.
20. Odenbaugh, J. 2003. Values, advocacy, and conservation biology. Environmental Values 12:55-69.
21. Pielke, R. A. Jr. 2004. When scientists politicize science: making sense of controversy over The Skeptical Environmentalist. Environmental Science and Policy 7:405-417.
22. Robinson, J. G. 2006. Conservation biology and real-world conservation. Conservation Biology 20:658-669.
23. Roebuck, P., and P. Phifer. 1999. The persistence of positivism in conservation biology. Conservation Biology 13:444-446.
24. Rykiel, E. J. 2001. Scientific objectivity, value systems, and policy making. BioScience 51:433-436.
25. Salwasser, H. 2004. Confronting the implications of wicked problems: changes needed in Sierra Nevada National Forest planning and problem solving. Pages 7-22 in Proceedings of the Sierra Nevada science symposium: science for management and conservation. General technical report PSW-GTR-193. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Kings Beach, California.
26. Sarewitz, D. 2004. How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science and Policy 7:385-403.
27. Scott, J. M., J. L. Rachlow, R. T. Lackey, A. B. Pidgorna, J. L. Aycrigg, G. R. Feldman, L. K. Svancara, D. A. Rupp, and D. I. Stanish. 2007. Policy advocacy in science: prevalence, perspectives, and implications for conservation biologists. Conservation Biology 21:29-35.
28. Sullivan, P. J., et al. 2006. Defining and implementing best available science for fisheries and environmental science, policy, and management. Fisheries 31:460-465.
29. Trudgill, S. T. 2001. Psychobiogeography: meanings of nature and motivations for a democratized conservation ethic. Journal of Biogeography 28:677-698.
30. van Houtan, K. S. 2006. Conservation as virtue: a scientific and social process for conservation ethics. Conservation Biology 20:1367-1372.