• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Conservation Biology >Inadvertent Advocacy
【24h】

Inadvertent Advocacy

机译：疏忽倡导

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Policy advocacy is an issue regularly debated among conservation scientists. These debates have focused on intentional policy advocacy by scientists, but advocacy can also be unintentional. I define inadvertent policy advocacy as the act of unintentionally expressing personal policy preferences or ethical judgments in a way that is nearly indistinguishable from scientific judgments. A scientist may be well intentioned and intellectually honest but still inadvertently engage in policy advocacy. There are two ways to inadvertently engage in policy advocacy. First, a scientist expresses an opinion that she or he believes is a scientific judgment but it is actually an ethical judgment or personal policy preference. Second, a scientist expresses an opinion that he or she knows is an ethical judgment or personal policy preference but inadvertently fails to effectively communicate the nature of the opinion to policy makers or the public. I illustrate inadvertent advocacy with three examples: recovery criteria in recovery plans for species listed under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, a scientific peer review of a recovery plan for the Northern Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis caurina), and the International Union for Conservation of Nature's definition of threatened. In each example, scientists expressed ethical judgments or policy preferences, but their value judgments were not identified as such, and, hence, their value judgments were opaque to policy makers and the public. Circumstances suggest their advocacy was inadvertent. I believe conservation scientists must become acutely aware of the line between science and policy and avoid inadvertent policy advocacy because it is professional negligence, erodes trust in scientists and science, and perpetuates an ethical vacuum that undermines the rational political discourse necessary for the evolution of society's values. The principal remedy for inadvertent advocacy is education of conservation scientists in an effort to help them understand how science and values interact to fulfill the mission of conservation science.
机译：政策倡导是保护科学家经常讨论的问题。这些辩论集中在科学家的有意政策倡导上，但倡导也可能是无意的。我将无意的政策倡导定义为无意识地表达个人政策偏好或道德判断的行为，这种行为与科学判断几乎没有区别。科学家可能怀有良好的主意和知识上的诚实，但仍无意中参与了政策倡导。有两种不经意间参与政策倡导的方法。首先，科学家表达一种观点，认为她或他认为这是一种科学判断，但实际上是一种道德判断或个人政策偏爱。其次，科学家表达自己认为是道德判断或个人政策偏爱的观点，但无意间无法有效地将观点的性质传达给决策者或公众。我用三个例子说明了疏忽大意的倡导：美国《濒危物种法》所列物种的恢复计划中的恢复标准，北部斑点猫头鹰（Strix occidentalis caurina）恢复计划的科学同行评审以及国际自然保护联盟威胁的定义。在每个示例中，科学家都表达了道德判断或政策偏爱，但他们的价值判断并没有被这样确定，因此，他们的价值判断对决策者和公众是不透明的。情况表明他们的倡导是无意的。我认为，保护科学家必须敏锐地意识到科学与政策之间的界线，并避免因疏忽大意而提倡政策，因为这是专业上的疏忽，侵蚀了对科学家和科学的信任，并使道德真空永久化，破坏了社会发展所必需的理性政治话语。价值观。疏忽倡导的主要补救方法是对保护科学家进行教育，以帮助他们了解科学和价值观如何相互作用以实现保护科学的使命。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号