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 journalArticlepeer-review

    22 Downloads (Pure)


    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 languageEnglish
    Article numbere12757
    Pages (from-to)1-13
    Number of pages13
    JournalConservation Letters
    Issue number1
    Early online date7 Sep 2020
    Publication statusPublished - Jan 2021


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

    Cite this