Masters Dissertation Example

 

---

16 
2.5.2 The IPCC model 
The IPCC has established itself as the world’s authority on climate change, and whilst there 
are issues in terms of the balance between politics and science, it remains as the best example 
of global dissemination of research and collaboration of scientists and policy makers (Reid & 
Mace, 2003). It has been suggested that such a model should exist for the conservation of 
biodiversity, and indeed the MEA has gone some way towards filling this gap and needs to be 
based on the best scientific information (Reid & Mace, 2003). Whilst there can be questions as 
to the influence this would have on a local level, it would obviously be of benefit to facilitate 
wider use and collation of existing information, perhaps with an element of systematic review 
element incorporated.
2.5.3 The advocacy debate 
There is also a debate amongst conservation biologists as to how scientific information should 
be presented, and whether scientists should simply report and interpret their findings, or make 
recommendations for their use. Various authors have suggested that although advocacy is 
embedded in the scientific literature, it is not the role of scientists to involve themselves in 
policy as this ruins their credibility as a provider of information (Scott et al, 2007; Tear et al, 
2005; Lackey, 2007). Others believe that the scientists are in the best position to interpret the 
results of their study (Ehrlich, 2002), but should do so without becoming ‘politicised’ (Lach, 
2003). There are also those who believe that scientists need to interpret their findings and 
advocate a use for them (Freyfogle & Newton, 2002; Brussard & Tull, 2007), as scientific 
facts can easily be separated from preference.
Those who are against advocacy in science point out the need to separate science from 
feasibility (Tear et al, 2005). Whilst this is true to a certain extent (and issues with this have 
already been identified in section 2.1.1), conservation is a normative science (Meijaard & 
Shiel, 2007) and it is necessary to place the scientific findings in a practical context as this is 
likely the only way they can be used (Robinson, 2006). Perhaps the issue has become slightly 
polarised by this debate, and should be viewed more in terms of the fact that scientists should 
be making concrete recommendations for the use of their findings other than just for ‘further 
research’. An analysis of the Indonesian literature (Meijaard & Sheil, 2007), for example, 

---

17 
showed a distinct lack of concrete recommendations that could realistically be put to practical 
use. Such recommendations for action would seem to be a way of facilitating the 
implementation of scientific research and it would be interesting to establish whether those 
scientists making concrete recommendations based on their findings are more likely to 
influence conservation practice.

---

18