seaturtle.org : MTN : ARCHIVES : Sign In

Scientists who are members of such organizations presumably identify with their mission statements. Does membership in such organizations undermine a scientist’s claims to ‘objectivity’? Can we interpret membership in conservation organizations as a potential source of bias when scientists are asked to provide data that will influence conservation policy? Beyond membership, are scientists open to accusations of conflicts of interest based on the funds and support they receive from specific organizations, be these government, private, or not-for-profit? At a more fundamental level, is anyone able to fully meet the ideals of objectivity, completely separating his/her values from science? In the world of marine turtle conservation and research, these questions are more than academic. Marine turtles and their conservation can be included in the category of what (Salwasser 2004) identifies as ‘wicked’ problems. These have several characteristics, including: clear winners and losers in policy outcomes; the use of science to mask personal policy preferences; divisiveness and confrontation, where individuals demonize supporters of competing policy preferences rather than present analytical arguments; high levels of uncertainty; national versus regional conflict; and semantic wrangling, where the meaning of words matters and arguments over meaning are often surrogates for debates over values (Lackey 2006; Lackey 2007). In such cases, Lackey (2007, 12) argues that scientists “must exercise great care to play an appropriate and clearly defined role” and suggests that scientists avoid advocacy altogether (this view is not shared by all conservation biologists, see (Brussard & Tull 2007) for an alternative view of advocacy). Lackey (2007, 13) argues that “Attempting to be both the provider of policy-neutral science and an advocate for one’s personal policy preference is laden with conflicts of interest.”

But what is conflict of interest? Generally, a conflict of interest arises when a person with obligations to a particular organization, or to maintaining a particular standard, is compromised by other commitments and interests. ‘Other’ interests are typically portrayed as financial, but can also include more intangible gains, e.g. ensuring one policy option is adopted over another, or realizing deeply held values. Conflicts of interest can be potential, real, or perceived, and there are several possibilities for dealing with them. Disclosure of conflicts of interest is probably the most common method (and the most feasible). Disclosure can contribute to transparency and assist people in assessing arguments for and against particular interpretations of data or of conservation policies. What is important to note is that disclosing a conflict of interest does not remove it, but rather alerts others to its presence.

Calls for disclosure of conflicts of interest surfaced recently in debates among members of the Marine Turtle Specialist Group (MTSG) about the utility of the IUCN’s Red List criteria for assessing the status of marine turtles. These calls surface primarily when someone on one side of the debate is questioning the views of someone on the other, i.e. there has been a focus on the conflicts of interests, and to a certain extent Lackey’s (2006)‘demonization’, of particular people. There have also been suggestions for widespread disclosure of conflicts of interest. Such disclosure in debates about marine turtle conservation would achieve three important things. First, it would increase transparency in the debate for all of those participating and watching from the sidelines. Second, it would increase self-awareness among participants. It is much easier to see conflicts of interest in other people, particularly those we don’t agree with, than in ourselves (to this end, I advocate full disclosure, i.e. moving beyond a listing of funding agencies and policy preferences, to a more self-reflexive examination of personal bias). Third, it might decrease animosity, since self-disclosure would reduce the need for accusations of conflicts of interest between colleagues.

All of these things are worth pursuing. However, we need to recognize the limits to disclosure, i.e. what it won’t achieve. First, given the normative nature of conservation itself, the mission statement of two of the largest organizations dedicated to marine turtles, and the way research on conservation and on endangered species is funded, there are likely to be few scientists actively engaged in debates about marine turtle biology and conservation that could convince all other scientists that they have no potential, perceived, or real conflict of interest. Perception is important in this case, since it will impact on how someone’s position is assessed whether or not the conflict of interest is ‘real.’ If everyone can be accused of having a conflict of interest, we are unlikely to achieve much in terms of resolving debates through their disclosure. Second, focusing on conflicts of interest can serve as a distraction, directing people to spend more time assessing each other’s credibility than examining the data or policy at stake (Campbell 2002). Finally, the above referenced debate in the MTSG revealed that several researchers had received funding from what some people considered a ‘problematic’ source (problematic because it has a clear policy objective), and yet the views of those researchers on the Red List process varied. Thus, accepting funds from a particular source did not pre-determine individual assessments of the Red List. In general, assessments of funding sources and whether or not these are ‘problematic’ is likely to be subject to the same problems encountered when assessing conflict of interest; perceptions of problems will be as important as their actual existence.

In the end, we will see conflicts of interests where we want to. While their disclosure will achieve a number of things, disclosure in and of itself is unlikely to settle debates about marine turtle conservation.

BRUSSARD, P.R. & J.C. TULL. 2007. Conservation biology and four types of advocacy. Conservation Biology 21: 21-24.

CAMPBELL, L.M. 2002. Science and sustainable use: views of conservation experts. Ecological Applications 12: 1229-1246.

JASANOFF, S. (1996). Science and norms in global environmental regimes. In: Hampson, F.O. & J. Reppy (Eds.) Earthly Goods: Environmental Change and Social Justice. Cornell University Press Ithica, N.Y. pp. 173-197.

KINCHY, A.J. & D.L. KLEINMAN. 2003. Organizing credibility: discursive and organizational orthodoxy on the border of ecology and politics. Social Studies of Science 33: 869-896.

LACKEY, R.T. 2006. Axioms of ecological policy. Fisheries 31: 286-290.

LACKEY, R.T. 2007. Science, scientists, and policy advocacy. Conservation Biology 21: 12-17.

SALWASSER H. (2004). Confronting the implications of wicked problems: changes need in Sierra Nevada National Forest planning and problem solving. In: Murphy, D.D. & P.A. Stine (Eds). Proceedings of the Sierra Nevada Science Symposium. USDA Technical Report PSW-GTR-193 pp. 7-22.