“Tropical biologists need help”. Such a strong and unequivocal statement opened last week’s Journal Club. The paper selected was Sheil & Lawrence’s 2004 opinion piece “Tropical biologists, local people and conservation: new opportunities for collaboration” (see complete reference below).
This opinion piece catches Lawrence and Sheil in service of a layered, thought-provoking article revolving around the great importance of integrating local peoples in the conservation challenge in tropical latitudes. The authors reach out tentatively into the frequently unexplored genre of scientific opinion to present the idea that tropical biologists need to start shifting their sight from conventional sampling to the new opportunities provided by working with local people in order to develop effective conservation strategies in the Tropics. To back their viewpoint, they provide an extensive list of successful experiences of local collaborations across the tropical, which constitutes most of the body of the text. Later on, they discuss some obstacles to explain the meager implementation of these approaches and their frequent out-of-sight position to mainstream biologists. Yet, the promise that this opinion entails gives way to some weaknesses, which were at the core of our Journal’s Club debate. More than concentrating on the actual opinions presented in the paper (to be honest, we all quite agreed in essence with them), our discussion glided over more stylistic issues on how to write a good opinion piece. Some points at the technical level were also discussed.
Two things need to be born in mind when reading this paper. First, the paper was published in 2004. We are conscious that reading about “new” opportunities for collaboration ten years after publication can be absolutely misleading. And actually it is, because the article is completely outdated if we take into account recent works on parabiology (see Danielsen et al. 2009 for an example). However, what seems important is that if we get back to the early 2000s perhaps a piece such as this one was not only necessary, but also urgently needed. That is what persuaded us to pick up this paper for our Journal Club’s discussion. Moreover, the fact that it only concentrated on “local collaborations for species inventories and related ecological studies” (rather than on other more classical concerns, such as monitoring environmental impacts or raising conservation awareness), situated this paper as the ideal focus for the scope of our research group.
Secondly, this article is an Opinion piece, and we actually have to admit that most scientists we are not used to read pieces in this literary style. The way we write, think and work is framed in an empirical manner that somehow disapproves for the opinion formula, where statements do not need to be accompanied by a comprehensive set of empirical evidences and can be presented rough and plain. We are generally taught to believe that scientists are entitled not to have an opinion, but this view is not necessarily true. Science per se is not the enemy of opinion. Opinion can be somehow a result of scientific endeavor. And for this reason, the intrusion of science into the territory of opinion does not have to be resented, but on the contrary, it should be definitely encouraged, especially for a “normative and ethically motivated pursuit” (citing Lawrence and Sheil) such as conservation. In this sense, we praise the courage and commitment shown by the authors to deploy all their best moves by adopting a quite appealing and merciless writing, an objective and well-reasoned tone and a topic of timeless relevance for such an opinionated article.
The most troubling point that we found in the article is that it is too long to make an appealing opinion piece. In our point of view, good opinion pieces need to be more concrete, shorter and, for instance, less preachy. Otherwise, the message gets blurred and the whole portrait depicted gets fuzzy. Unfortunately, that is the case of the present article. The authors succumb to the temptation of “over-sourcing” to give credit to their opinions, which as the lecture advances, becomes overwhelming to the reader. As compelling and original as this theme is –or was in 2004-, it turns not to be enough to keep our attention, no matter how repeatedly they state that local peoples do matter to conservation science. The arguments start to turn in circles and the whole reasoning becomes repetitive and too overzealous, while the exhaustive list of sources is shown not provide anything unique or novel to the article. To some extent, the opinion article becomes more a review than it needs to be, with references crowding out the arguments. Moreover, the fact that no single mention to contrary evidence is given in all the text jeopardizes the credit of the article itself.
At a scientific/technical level, there were some things that puzzled us. First, there was any single mention to citizen science, which does poor favor to the apparent “novelty” of the article back in the 2000s. What makes parabiology different from citizen science? The given definition of “parabiology” –as well as the whole framework of the article- does not transcend particularly from citizen science. Moreover, the reader is left to wonder where is the difference between working in the Tropics than in the rest of the world. Can we apply all the lessons that we have learned in Western countries about citizen science to tropical latitudes? Or can we not? Surprisingly, the authors do not note at any point all the parabiological work that has been done by using citizen-science. For instance, some of the paragons of bird atlases have been built through observations by amateur volunteers (see Silvertown 2009). Moreover, the way in which “parabiologists” are presented sounds a bit pragmatic and worth of contempt. At some point, it gives even the slight impression that parabiologists are just a mere way to get cheap labor, which is more than ethically questionable. In our opinion, further and stronger effort should have been put in the article to account for parabiology as a way to endure and foster local self-esteem and building capacity (not only at the level of scientific training). Citizen-science has always a strong focus on being a part of a big project. The emphasis is somehow put beyond data collection, with benefits aside from monetary compensation. Such a crucial perspective is neglected in the paper.
Furthermore, the obvious lack of depth given to the issue of data quality is particularly shocking. More emphasis should have been put on how to validate the quality of the data issued from local populations. We quite disapproved for the sentence “the need for crosschecks and quality control (…) is often overemphasized”, especially those of us who have (not so easily) dealt with social science data in the field of conservation science. We know that human knowledge and perceptions are shaped by many uncontrolled factors (e.g. age, emotions, Shifting Baselines, to cite just a few). Despite this, Sheil and Lawrence still call on tropical biologists to appreciate datasets that, for instance, might not pass the usual standards in experimental biological data, such as data issued from techniques common to social science research. The problem is that we are left to wonder how to do so, and that is precisely the thing that one expects when reading a title stating “new opportunities”.
It is a pity that the authors did not plunge much into philosophical depths, despite the huge epistemological implications of the topic. Some researchers argue that giving non-scientists the right and the opportunity to speak about science precipitates a demonopolization of scientific knowledge (see for instance Rudiak-Gould et al. 2013). Expertise is decentered and that is not something easy to deal with. While the paper clearly states that “challenges and obstacles can be overcome” the authors do not provide an answer to the elusive question of how to integrate different datasets, methodologies and bodies of knowledge into academic science. Of course, there are many opportunities being missed (that is clearly shown throughout the paper), but the article casts very few light into how this could be avoided.
Ultimately, we face an article that uses a lot of words and references to say not so much new. Unfortunately, their excessive apology of “local collaborations” overshadows the article itself. Despite much emphasis and credit to social science work applied to the field of conservation, the work goes for too broad and general statements instead of the subtlety and nuance that one might expect in an opinion article such as this one. At the end, it becomes an article that cannot decide what it wants to say about collaborating with local peoples, more than that it is important and needed, which is nevertheless a legitimate and very valid opinion.
We found, however, refreshing to see that this opinion piece was published in such a highly ranked journal as Trends in Ecology and Evolution. Even nowadays, works in parabiology are still the exception. Although citizen-science has already gained some terrain, there is still much to do, and reading that these kind of approaches are published in ecological journals shows that there is a great interest to put an end to the “dialog of the deaf” (sensu Agrawal & Ostrom 2006) that has long-time characterized natural and social sciences. Despite a bit of over-sourcing and a certain taste for repetition, this opinion piece makes the most prolific use it possibly can out of one specific advantage that scientific journals have over mass media when it comes to back opinions with empirical knowledge.
Tropical –as well as non-tropical- biologists need help if they (and/or we) want to confront the current biodiversity crisis, and such help is likely to stem from local collaborations. However, such conclusion is too shallow to resonate and does not make any special contribution to conservation biology. Despite the sheer and persuading tone of the text, very little of it feels particularly novel. Perhaps the point of the authors is not to offer particular answers, but to raise important questions. It may be argued that these questions were really trendy, fashionable, new and, most of all, needed ten years ago, but nowadays they look a bit simplistic, merely touching the surface and rather naïve. However, this might not entirely be the author’s fault, since these critiques mostly stem from the advancement of knowledge that we have gained since the publication of this piece. Or perhaps they do not. In any case, once again, that is just an opinion. Maybe it is an easy-to-make opinion but, again, a valid and legitimate one.
Paper discussed:
Sheil D, Lawrence A. 2004. Tropical biologists, local people and conservation: new opportunities for collaboration. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 19(12): 634-638.
Other references cited above:
Agrawal A & Ostrom E. 2006. Political Science and Conservation Biology: a Dialog of the Deaf. Conservation Biology 20(3): 681-682.
Danielsen F et al. 2009. Local Participation in Natural Resource Monitoring: A Characterization of Approaches. Conservation Biology 23(1): 31-42.
Rudiak-Gould P. 2013. “We have seen it with our own eyes”: why we disagree about climate change visibility. Weather, Climate, and Society 5: 120-132.
Silvertown J. 2009. A new dawn for citizen science. Trends in Ecology and Evolution 24(9): 467-471.