Improving the use of science in conservation

Lessons from the Florida panther

Michael J. Conroy, Paul Beier, Howard Quigley, Michael R. Vaughan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

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 languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1-7
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Wildlife Management
Volume70
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - 2006

Fingerprint

Puma concolor
peers
Strix occidentalis
resource management
stakeholder
Strigiformes
committees
stakeholders
biologists
methodology
data analysis
monitoring
science
method
Puma concolor coryi
scientific committee
analysis

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 journalArticle

Conroy, Michael J. ; Beier, Paul ; Quigley, Howard ; Vaughan, Michael R. / Improving the use of science in conservation : Lessons from the Florida panther. In: Journal of Wildlife Management. 2006 ; Vol. 70, No. 1. pp. 1-7.
@article{16ecd4faac4c4823988550f26a2e7e25,
title = "Improving the use of science in conservation: Lessons from the Florida panther",
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.",
keywords = "Endangered species, Florida panther, Multiple working hypotheses, Peer review, Puma concolor, Recovery plans",
author = "Conroy, {Michael J.} and Paul Beier and Howard Quigley and Vaughan, {Michael R.}",
year = "2006",
doi = "10.2193/0022-541X(2006)70[1:ITUOSI]2.0.CO;2",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "70",
pages = "1--7",
journal = "Journal of Wildlife Management",
issn = "0022-541X",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

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

VL - 70

SP - 1

EP - 7

JO - Journal of Wildlife Management

JF - Journal of Wildlife Management

SN - 0022-541X

IS - 1

ER -