Consequences of information suppression in ecological and conservation sciences

Don A. Driscoll; Georgia E. Garrard; Alexander M. Kusmanoff; Stephen Dovers; Martine Maron; Noel Preece; Robert L. Pressey; Euan G. Ritchie

doi:10.1111/conl.12757

Consequences of information suppression in ecological and conservation sciences

Don A. Driscoll, Georgia E. Garrard, Alexander M. Kusmanoff, Stephen Dovers, Martine Maron, Noel Preece, Robert L. Pressey, Euan G. Ritchie

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

Abstract

Suppressing expert knowledge can hide environmentally damaging practices and policies from public scrutiny. We surveyed ecologists and conservation scientists from universities, government, and industry across Australia to understand the prevalence and consequences of suppressing science communication. Government (34%) and industry (30%) respondents reported higher rates of undue interference by employers than did university respondents (5%). Internal communications (29%) and media (28%) were curtailed most, followed by journal articles (11%), and presentations (12%). When university and industry researchers avoided public commentary, this was mainly for fear of media misrepresentation, while government employees were most often constrained by senior management and workplace policy. One third of respondents reported personal suffering related to suppression, including job losses and deteriorating mental health. Substantial reforms are needed, including to codes of practice, and governance of environmental assessments and research, so that scientific advice can be reported openly, in a timely manner and free from interference.

Original language	English
Article number	e12757
Pages (from-to)	1-13
Number of pages	13
Journal	Conservation Letters
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12757
Publication status	E-pub ahead of print - 7 Sep 2020

Access to Document

10.1111/conl.12757Licence: CC BY

Link to publication in Scopus

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Consequences of information suppression in ecological and conservation sciences'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this

Driscoll, D. A., Garrard, G. E., Kusmanoff, A. M., Dovers, S., Maron, M., Preece, N., Pressey, R. L., & Ritchie, E. G. (2020). Consequences of information suppression in ecological and conservation sciences. Conservation Letters, 1-13. [e12757]. https://doi.org/10.1111/conl.12757

@article{22419abb535c48068ac1acf4305e697c,

title = "Consequences of information suppression in ecological and conservation sciences",

abstract = "Suppressing expert knowledge can hide environmentally damaging practices and policies from public scrutiny. We surveyed ecologists and conservation scientists from universities, government, and industry across Australia to understand the prevalence and consequences of suppressing science communication. Government (34%) and industry (30%) respondents reported higher rates of undue interference by employers than did university respondents (5%). Internal communications (29%) and media (28%) were curtailed most, followed by journal articles (11%), and presentations (12%). When university and industry researchers avoided public commentary, this was mainly for fear of media misrepresentation, while government employees were most often constrained by senior management and workplace policy. One third of respondents reported personal suffering related to suppression, including job losses and deteriorating mental health. Substantial reforms are needed, including to codes of practice, and governance of environmental assessments and research, so that scientific advice can be reported openly, in a timely manner and free from interference.",

keywords = "academic freedom, advocacy, conservation policy, corruption, decision making, environmental impact assessment, freedom of information, public discourse, scientific censorship, scientific integrity",

author = "Driscoll, {Don A.} and Garrard, {Georgia E.} and Kusmanoff, {Alexander M.} and Stephen Dovers and Martine Maron and Noel Preece and Pressey, {Robert L.} and Ritchie, {Euan G.}",

year = "2020",

month = sep

day = "7",

doi = "10.1111/conl.12757",

language = "English",

pages = "1--13",

journal = "Conservation Letters",

issn = "1755-263X",

publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Consequences of information suppression in ecological and conservation sciences

AU - Driscoll, Don A.

AU - Garrard, Georgia E.

AU - Kusmanoff, Alexander M.

AU - Dovers, Stephen

AU - Maron, Martine

AU - Preece, Noel

AU - Pressey, Robert L.

AU - Ritchie, Euan G.

PY - 2020/9/7

Y1 - 2020/9/7

N2 - Suppressing expert knowledge can hide environmentally damaging practices and policies from public scrutiny. We surveyed ecologists and conservation scientists from universities, government, and industry across Australia to understand the prevalence and consequences of suppressing science communication. Government (34%) and industry (30%) respondents reported higher rates of undue interference by employers than did university respondents (5%). Internal communications (29%) and media (28%) were curtailed most, followed by journal articles (11%), and presentations (12%). When university and industry researchers avoided public commentary, this was mainly for fear of media misrepresentation, while government employees were most often constrained by senior management and workplace policy. One third of respondents reported personal suffering related to suppression, including job losses and deteriorating mental health. Substantial reforms are needed, including to codes of practice, and governance of environmental assessments and research, so that scientific advice can be reported openly, in a timely manner and free from interference.

AB - Suppressing expert knowledge can hide environmentally damaging practices and policies from public scrutiny. We surveyed ecologists and conservation scientists from universities, government, and industry across Australia to understand the prevalence and consequences of suppressing science communication. Government (34%) and industry (30%) respondents reported higher rates of undue interference by employers than did university respondents (5%). Internal communications (29%) and media (28%) were curtailed most, followed by journal articles (11%), and presentations (12%). When university and industry researchers avoided public commentary, this was mainly for fear of media misrepresentation, while government employees were most often constrained by senior management and workplace policy. One third of respondents reported personal suffering related to suppression, including job losses and deteriorating mental health. Substantial reforms are needed, including to codes of practice, and governance of environmental assessments and research, so that scientific advice can be reported openly, in a timely manner and free from interference.

KW - academic freedom

KW - advocacy

KW - conservation policy

KW - corruption

KW - decision making

KW - environmental impact assessment

KW - freedom of information

KW - public discourse

KW - scientific censorship

KW - scientific integrity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85090302738&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/conl.12757

DO - 10.1111/conl.12757

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85090302738

SP - 1

EP - 13

JO - Conservation Letters

JF - Conservation Letters

SN - 1755-263X

M1 - e12757

ER -