Conservation science and the ethos of restraint

Abstract

Despite aiming to make conservation science and practice more effective, many conservationists default to excessive precaution, advocating conservative actions—or even inaction. The field suffers from an understandable aversion to unintended consequences, especially for approaches involving biotechnology and “next‐generation” interventions. We call this default precautionary attitude among conservationists the ethos of restraint and argue for replacing it with an ethos of responsible conservation action. Loosening the ethos of restraint will require (a) more holistically accounting for comparative risks, benefits, and costs of novel approaches; (b) gathering more data on their consequences; (c) engaging in dialogue about intended consequences and conservation values; and (d) pursuing adaptive implementation strategies. Adopting an ethos of responsible conservation action requires grasping that precaution and proaction are not diametrically opposed attitudes. Instead, we must decide what level of precaution or proaction is warranted, and what to do, on a case‐by‐case basis.

Whose intentions? What consequences? Interrogating “Intended Consequences” for conservation with environmental biotechnology

“…In the spirit of developing an ethos of responsible conservation (Brister et al, 2021), RRI explicitly generates deliberative space to infuse the development and governance of novel genetic tools with democratic principles oriented toward justice. RRI encourages the inclusion of disparate values, perspectives, and worldviews to consider a broad range of ideas about what is ethically acceptable (Foley et al, 2016;Stilgoe et al, 2013).…”

“…As such, this is a framework for interrogating how conservation practitioners and environmental biotechnology proponents and opponents frame problems and proposed solutions. Many agree that species loss is one of humanity's grand challenges (IPBES, 2019), but not everyone agrees on the same set of morally appropriate responses (Brister et al, 2021).…”

“…As the world faces intractable species loss due to habitat degradation, climate change, invasive species, and other factors, a range of conservation institutions and individuals have called for transformational tools to address these losses (Campbell et al 2019;Piaggio et al, 2017;IPBES, 2019;Redford, Brooks, Macfarlane, & Adams, 2019). In light of these pressing problems, inaction feels unethical (Brister, Holbrook, & Palmer, 2021). Yet, while novel genetic interventions may offer innovative solutions to environmental challenges, they also represent new kinds of risks and concerns for diverse publics (Burgiel et al 2021).…”

“…They explained that by focusing on potential negative outcomes of emerging technologies like gene editing, their potential utility in species protection could lead to overblown fears of unknown and unanticipated consequences. To counter this paralysis, we might instead consider the moral hazards of inaction (Brister et al, 2021), and how the loss of such tools would be unethical in the context of global species loss.…”

Exploring the intersections of governance, constituencies, and risk in genetic interventions

“…Ethical concerns are divided between principled concerns about biotechnology and the relationship between humans and nature (Preston, 2018;Sandler, 2019), and concerns about consequences for human and ecological health (Brister & Newhouse, 2021;Rohwer & Marris, 2018). Values affect stakeholders' evaluation of how much risk is acceptable (Brister, Holbrook, & Palmer, 2021).…”