In a new age of ‘fake news’, the exponentially growing ChatGPT, and being talked at by your climate change-denier uncle at the dinner table, how do we know who to trust? Well, the scientists obviously. But what happens when the scientists get it wrong?
An article released in January of 2024 “Systematic and persistent bias against introduced species” by Patricio Pereyra and colleagues, ruthlessly called out conservation biologists for demonstrating a bias against introduced species. Researchers were accused of shedding a negative light on introduced species no matter their taxonomy, habitat, time of introduction, and regardless of their attributed harm.
Pereyra speculated that the invasion of zebra mussels in North America had a strong impact on the establishment of the bias. Most cases of negative framing in publications were from North America.
A month later, a counterargument article, led by Dan Simberloff and including Phil Hulme from Lincoln University, was submitted to the same journal. This response tore Pereyra’s article to shreds. For example, there is so much more published material labelling invasive species as harmful simply because most research is driven by funding to deal with harmful species.
The “guilty until proven innocent” was seen by Pereyra as a bias, whereas Simberloff argued that it was the safest approach. Better to prevent outbreaks first rather than assume innocence and scramble to clean up the mess later.
The validity of Pereyra’s research methods was also called into question. In their assessment of 300 publications, Pereyra and colleagues based their assessments on only the introduction of each paper, the section where no current research is reported. Pereyra stated that no non-native species have caused any type of extinction, by citing a study that only assessed their impact on native plants. This would be news to those in New Zealand dealing with the impacts of introduced mammalian predators. In addition, all of the assessments made in this article were made by two authors, with a third brought in when those two disagreed.
Pereyra and colleagues continued to selectively use evidence that matched their hypothesis by making continual reference to the ‘tens rule’. This states that only 1% of non-native species will become pests. As more research on more diverse taxa was undertaken, this rule became a misleadingly low estimate. In fact, it is estimated that 50% of invasive vertebrates lead to harm. So while modern conservationists are able to recognise that the tens rule is outdated, the average person reading at home will not.
This is just a tiny example of a much larger problem science is facing right now; the power of a harmful narrative in science and its implications for the general public. The science world has been struggling for a while now with issues like P-hacking (selecting data analyses that produce results aligning with their hypothesis), fraudulent scientific papers making it to publication (fabricating research that has not taken place to boost career accolades and experience in industry), and like the mentioned article, lack of rigorous scientific procedure.
False science can turn certain areas of science into a debate to be had by those who are not fully equipped enough to have it. By now I believe just about everyone in the Western World knows about the reports that vaccines cause autism, an idea that originated from two academic physicians in the 1950s.
Over 70 years later there is a massive group of people who still believe this to be true, despite countless modern scientists disproving this idea. Not only do scientists have to conduct research to further the field, they now have to spend countless years using countless resources trying to prove to the public that the beliefs they are so desperately holding on to are, in fact, not accurate.
While the article accusing scientists of holding a bias against non-native species may not have such a wide reach as the vaccine debacle, it does have the ability to change the minds of people. It can change the environmental beliefs they hold, the way they look at conservation, and the future research they conduct, as well as aligning with their personal beliefs outside the world of science. It creates issues that would otherwise not have arisen; spreading misinformation, fostering unwarranted skepticism, and contributing to the polarisation of environmental issues.
For example, the Pereyra paper could cause shifts in perception, such as questioning established ecological principles, potentially undermining conservation efforts aimed at preserving native biodiversity. This can have a ripple effect, influencing policy decisions, funding allocations, and public support for important conservation initiatives. While openness and debate in the scientific community is important and should be encouraged, you simply have to get your facts right.
So again I ask, what happens when even the scientists get it wrong? Actually, it happens all the time. Trial and error are the engine of science! Scientific theories are tested to be disproven to ensure we actually have a full understanding of whatever it is we are studying.
People at home can also look to disprove scientific theories. Pay attention to the transparency of the method and study size, credibility of sources, and citations from reputable journals and research institutions. It may not save your life, but it will save you from a lifetime of ill-informed conversation around the dinner table. You don’t want to be that relative.
This article was prepared by Master of International Nature Conservation student Alexandra Paish as part of the ECOL608 Research Methods in Ecology course.
Leave a Reply