Abstract
In a companion article (Beier et al. 2006), we identified 2 sets of unreliable inferences that may compromise efforts to conserve the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi). In spite of serious flaws in methodology and interpretation, these unreliable conclusions have appeared in prominent, peer-refereed scientific journals and have been repeatedly cited and miscited in support of panther conservation. Future editors and referees may reduce these errors by insisting on adherence to an Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRAD) format; checking improbable assertions attributed to earlier papers; and refusing to allow scientific inference in publication formats not subject to scientific peer review (e.g., editorials). We urge conservation biologists to view science as an adaptive process and to use the method of multiple working hypotheses (Chamberlin 1890) that are now a central feature of adaptive resource management (Walters 1986, Williams et al. 2002). We advocate a workshop approach, similar to that used for analysis of data for the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis; Anderson et al. 1999), to deal with scientific disagreement where, as in the case with panthers, stakeholders have entrenched points of view. Finally, we recommend the creation of an independent Scientific Steering Committee to address long-term issues of future research and monitoring of Florida panthers.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 1-7 |
| Number of pages | 7 |
| Journal | Journal of Wildlife Management |
| Volume | 70 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 2006 |
Fingerprint
Keywords
- Endangered species
- Florida panther
- Multiple working hypotheses
- Peer review
- Puma concolor
- Recovery plans
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Animal Science and Zoology
- Ecology
Cite this
Improving the use of science in conservation : Lessons from the Florida panther. / Conroy, Michael J.; Beier, Paul; Quigley, Howard; Vaughan, Michael R.
In: Journal of Wildlife Management, Vol. 70, No. 1, 2006, p. 1-7.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Improving the use of science in conservation
T2 - Lessons from the Florida panther
AU - Conroy, Michael J.
AU - Beier, Paul
AU - Quigley, Howard
AU - Vaughan, Michael R.
PY - 2006
Y1 - 2006
N2 - In a companion article (Beier et al. 2006), we identified 2 sets of unreliable inferences that may compromise efforts to conserve the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi). In spite of serious flaws in methodology and interpretation, these unreliable conclusions have appeared in prominent, peer-refereed scientific journals and have been repeatedly cited and miscited in support of panther conservation. Future editors and referees may reduce these errors by insisting on adherence to an Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRAD) format; checking improbable assertions attributed to earlier papers; and refusing to allow scientific inference in publication formats not subject to scientific peer review (e.g., editorials). We urge conservation biologists to view science as an adaptive process and to use the method of multiple working hypotheses (Chamberlin 1890) that are now a central feature of adaptive resource management (Walters 1986, Williams et al. 2002). We advocate a workshop approach, similar to that used for analysis of data for the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis; Anderson et al. 1999), to deal with scientific disagreement where, as in the case with panthers, stakeholders have entrenched points of view. Finally, we recommend the creation of an independent Scientific Steering Committee to address long-term issues of future research and monitoring of Florida panthers.
AB - In a companion article (Beier et al. 2006), we identified 2 sets of unreliable inferences that may compromise efforts to conserve the Florida panther (Puma concolor coryi). In spite of serious flaws in methodology and interpretation, these unreliable conclusions have appeared in prominent, peer-refereed scientific journals and have been repeatedly cited and miscited in support of panther conservation. Future editors and referees may reduce these errors by insisting on adherence to an Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion (IMRAD) format; checking improbable assertions attributed to earlier papers; and refusing to allow scientific inference in publication formats not subject to scientific peer review (e.g., editorials). We urge conservation biologists to view science as an adaptive process and to use the method of multiple working hypotheses (Chamberlin 1890) that are now a central feature of adaptive resource management (Walters 1986, Williams et al. 2002). We advocate a workshop approach, similar to that used for analysis of data for the northern spotted owl (Strix occidentalis; Anderson et al. 1999), to deal with scientific disagreement where, as in the case with panthers, stakeholders have entrenched points of view. Finally, we recommend the creation of an independent Scientific Steering Committee to address long-term issues of future research and monitoring of Florida panthers.
KW - Endangered species
KW - Florida panther
KW - Multiple working hypotheses
KW - Peer review
KW - Puma concolor
KW - Recovery plans
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33645822179&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33645822179&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.2193/0022-541X(2006)70[1:ITUOSI]2.0.CO;2
DO - 10.2193/0022-541X(2006)70[1:ITUOSI]2.0.CO;2
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:33645822179
VL - 70
SP - 1
EP - 7
JO - Journal of Wildlife Management
JF - Journal of Wildlife Management
SN - 0022-541X
IS - 1
ER -