Applied ecologists in a landscape of fear

Fear is a powerful response to danger, and a strong driver of evolution. The ‘landscape of fear’ concept has helped ecologists to describe how animals’ perception of predation risk alters their spatial (e.g. Laundré, Hernández, & Altendorf, 2001; Ripple and Beschta, 2004) and temporal (Gaynor, Hojnowski, Carter, & Brashares, 2018) distribution, leading to ecological resources being under-utilized, populations being restricted, and ecosystem processes themselves being altered (Laundré, Hernández, & Ripple, 2010). Interestingly, the recent rise in political populism (see, e.g. the recent analysis by the Guardian, which is based on a robust methodology reviewed by political scientists; Guardian, 2018a, 2018b) and nationalism (Bieber, 2018; Financial Times, 2018) across the world has led to an unwelcome and analogous situation for ecologists themselves, with the real or perceived fear of state action limiting, and in some cases, threatening the activities of researchers, educators and environmental practitioners. Science, as any other activity involving social collaboration, is subject to shifting fortunes. Difficult as the very notion may appear to those reared in a culture which grants science a prominent if not a commanding place in the scheme of things, it is evident that science is not immune from attack, restraint and repression (…) Local contagions of anti-intellectualism threaten to become an epidemic. With this Editorial, we examine how the changing political landscape is currently affecting the science and personal safety of applied ecologists. We recognize that these issues are complex—individuals from all branches of science can be affected by these changes, and many of the issues transcend science itself. But we were motivated to write this contribution as we are concerned that the field-based working practices and mission-orientated nature of applied ecology and conservation is placing applied ecologists in situations where they face a growing risk, or where they may be unable to undertake their science effectively. This is far from a definitive review or a systematic analysis; rather it is a first step towards raising awareness and encouraging debate within the field of ecology. We begin by highlighting that even measures sometimes perceived as relatively innocuous, such as the underfunding of public institutions, wording changes in legislation or a reshuffle within government departments can all have important consequences for our ability to develop effective applied science. We then detail examples of how such measures have been associated with more substantial issues that threaten scientific independence as well as fundamental human rights such as job security, personal liberty, personal safety and bodily integrity (Figure 1). We conclude by suggesting some steps that could be taken to reduce the dangers faced by applied ecologists and by calling for increased dialogue around the issues we highlight. Although science was previously perceived as a means to generate knowledge that informs societal progress, there are global signs that years of fake news and anti-science movements may have significantly harmed the trust people place in scientific advice and the connection between science and policy (e.g. Gauchat, 2012; Hardy, Tallapragada, Besley, & Yuan, 2019; Nature Editorial, 2017; Rutjens, Heine, Sutton, & van Harreveld, 2018). Increasingly, expertise is denigrated and treated as though it is of no greater value than any other point of view, with science denialism and the use of anti-intellectual rhetoric by elites to win popular support becoming more common in many parts of the world (Grundmann, 2018; Hansson, 2017; McCarthy, 2019). It has now become commonplace to see politicians and policymakers, and the media that supports them, challenging independent scientists’ motives and actively denying and mocking scientific evidence, something exemplified by the Trump administration in the USA, which continues to ignore climate scientists’ warnings that anthropogenic climate change will hurt the US economy and risk lives (Allen, McAleer, & Mc Hardy Reid, 2018; Fredrickson et al., 2018; Park, 2017). Undermining of science is not only found in the media and at political rallies, but also manifests itself in more subtle ways. Indeed, scientific endeavours can be undermined through blatant disregard for scientific evidence during decision-making processes; reductions in funding for science; increased efforts to direct funding away from sensitive yet key issues; use of judiciary powers to discredit/reverse decisions based on scientific evidence; changes in legislation to muzzle or force academics out of the country; or governmental reorganisations that lead to ministries or science departments, for example, being placed within a larger ministry where the scientific focus will be diluted by competing priorities. Recent examples of such approaches include the dissolution of the Brazilian Climate Change Division within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and that of three departments in the Ministry of Environment—those dealing with climate change, mitigation policies and deforestation (Escobar, 2019); the Trump administration endangering public health by keeping a widely used pesticide (chlorpyrifos) on the market, despite extensive scientific evidence that low levels of exposure during gestation or childhood can impact neurological development (a decision that was ultimately reversed by the US federal court of appeals; Hiar, 2018); hundreds of climate researchers at Australia's national science agency losing their jobs after the announcement that it would shift its strategy away from basic climate science (despite the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) having been a leader in climate modelling and ocean observation in the Southern Hemisphere for decades; Gough, 2016); former Tanzanian president Kikwete signing a cybercrime law that gives authorities sweeping powers to jail those who offend the president, and which makes illegal the publication of any data not approved by the National Bureau of Statistics (AlJazeera, 2015); a whole university (Central European University) being forced out of Hungary by the government of Viktor Orbán (Guardian, 2018c); and the planned closure of thousands of private schools and many universities by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan after the 15 July coup attempt in Turkey (Göçek, 2016). Attempting to muzzle science by preventing scientists from carrying out research independently and expressing their views about key issues is a well-established approach to control and manage the influence of science on society (see e.g. Richter, 2015). What we suspect may have changed, however, is the extent to which these approaches are being employed by governments around the world. We now increasingly hear of limits to the freedom of expression being imposed on all kinds of scientists, both governmental and non-governmental, and enforced using a multitude of approaches. For example, scientists awarded federal grants in the US are being asked not to mention climate change (Shankman, 2017; Washington Post, 2017); during the Harper administration in Canada (2006–2015), government scientists were barred from presenting their research and discussing it directly with the media (Rapp Learn, 2017). Similarly, Bolsonaro's new government in Brazil recently announced a mandate that will oblige the government to ‘supervise, coordinate, monitor and accompany the activities and actions of international organizations and non-governmental organizations in the national territory’. Such a move is in clear contradiction of the constitutional right of non-governmental organizations to act independently, and could directly compromise research on sensitive subjects such as deforestation and forest degradation in the Amazon (The Star Online, 2019). Imprisonment has become a growing threat to ecologists and environmentalists voicing their concerns; a situation well exemplified by the fate of Yevgeny Vitishko in Russia, a mining engineer and geologist who was known for his outspoken ecological opposition to the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympic Games, and was incarcerated for years on the charge of swearing at a bus stop and spray painting a fence (Guardian, 2014). Given the examples above, one could assume that the major threats to science and its place in society come from the increasing prevalence of populist, anti-intellectual political parties in power. This may be true for many western countries where recent political changes are testing the relationship between the public and scientists, thereby increasing the challenges associated with developing a career in science. But when it comes to applied ecology, other factors are also creating anxiety and fear in the community. A non-negligible proportion of applied ecologists work outside their home countries, where views relating to gender, sexuality, disability, religion and ethnicity might be fundamentally different. Yet in some of these countries, views have recently become more extreme, posing increased levels of personal threat to researchers and practitioners operating in such environments. For example, in 2018, the president of Uganda, Kaguta Yoweri Museveni endorsed new legislation that further criminalizes lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) individuals—lengthening sentences for adults found ‘guilty’ of same–sex relationships, and extending punishments to people involved in ‘promoting’ homosexuality; under this law, anyone found guilty of same-sex relations will also now automatically be sentenced to a lifetime in prison (Amnesty International UK, 2018). Violence and discrimination against LGBT people is also common in other countries such as Ghana and Tanzania (Foreign Travel Advice, 2019; Human Rights Watch, 2018). Sanctions against members of the LGBT community can be even more extreme: same-sex sexual activity in the twelve northern states of Nigeria that have adopted Shari'a law is death by stoning, while Saudi Arabia punishes acts of homosexuality or cross dressing with punishments ranging from fines, floggings, to life in prison, death, and torture (Amnesty International, 2018; Foreign Travel Advice, 2019). As one can easily imagine, this has led to an increasing sense of fear for personal safety among LGBT colleagues travelling to, or operating in, these countries. The rise of less tolerant governments is particularly alarming in the era of social media (Taylor & Pagliairi, 2018), as information on who you are and what you think is more easily accessible than ever and can be accessed without prior consent or appreciation of the risks it could pose. There are many more examples of countries where persecutions against members of the LGBT community is a reality (World Economic Forum, 2017), and one could similarly find numerous examples around the world where applied ecologists with a specific gender, ethnicity or disability are putting their safety at risk (see Clancy, Nelson, Rutherford, & Hinde, 2014; Dammeyer & Chapman, 2018). Our aim is not to provide an exhaustive review of these situations, but to illustrate how personal attributes can shape levels of personal threats experienced by students, researchers and practitioners while carrying out their fieldwork or working abroad. The increased role of technology in applied ecology poses further risks to ecologists. Remote sensing of habitats and wildlife is increasingly important for improving our understanding of ecosystems and population dynamics. Yet the use of such techniques may put ecologists in danger when their scientific approaches are misinterpreted. This has been an issue faced by nine conservationists, who were imprisoned last year in Iran for using camera traps to survey the rare Asiatic cheetah (Stone, 2018); one of those detained has since died in prison. Some of us are also aware of scientists being detained for flying unmanned aerial vehicles in ecologically important yet politically or militarily sensitive areas. Applied ecology is driven not only by scientists’ curiosity, but also by environmental concerns raised by a diversity of stakeholders. There is currently substantial concern for practitioners, local environmental activists, and even journalists operating in various countries. Environmental activists are increasingly being assassinated globally, particularly in Latin America (Global Witness, 2019). Park managers working in remote regions are often targeted by wildlife poachers, metal and gem miners or loggers as they try to limit illegal activities (Global Conservation, 2019). Their roles will become increasingly difficult if, for example, recent increases in deforestation reflect the perception that environmental crimes will go unpunished. To quote Merton (1942) once more, ‘Crisis invites reappraisal’. As a community, we cannot ignore the changes that are happening around us, hoping that our ivory towers will stand strong in the midst of ever-changing political contexts. We, and the institutions that employ us, have a duty to recognize the increasing risks that our profession and activities pose to ourselves, our colleagues and our students, and to initiate a dialogue about ways to mitigate and manage these risks, whenever possible. Such steps are important, among other things, to avoid the slow and fear-driven retraction of scientific activities in remaining biodiversity hotspots, and to reduce the human costs associated with being an applied ecologist in the current political climate. A number of practical measures concerning personal safety, and personal sanity, can make a difference, such as limiting the sharing of personal information on social media; checking foreign travel advice, as well as laws and customs relevant to equality and diversity issues, before embarking on a field season; maintaining a regular dialogue with your health and safety officer; inquiring about legal support provided by your institution; or, when possible and relevant, developing lasting and equal partnerships with local organizations and groups, to support appropriate decision making and help diffuse the level of threat and stress experienced by each individual. Employers and academic institutions can similarly increase the personal safety of their students and staff by making sure their travel policies are regularly updated and include risks related to personal attributes; by organizing regular training for line managers, student supervisors and students to increase awareness and improve reactive capacity when issues arise; and by developing administrative processes that promote a deeper understanding of the risks involved and the safety nets in place. In the face of adversity, feeling that one is part of a supporting, tolerant and welcoming community can make a huge difference; improving inclusiveness within the scientific community, one may argue, is therefore another important step to negotiate the years ahead successfully. Addressing the risks posed to personal safety and sanity is, however, only part of the way forward. To reduce the increasing threats posed to applied ecologists, there is also a need to address the issue of trust between scientists and the general public that has been plaguing our societies for some time (Haerlin & Parr, 1999). Open science, transparency about the limits of scientific studies, increased diversity of background among scientists, bringing more citizens into research, and increasing levels of direct engagement with the general public are some of the positive steps that can help restore the perceived value of the scientific approach among our neighbours, friends and other taxpayers who ultimately can influence how decision makers integrate scientific evidence in their judgements. Providing more legal support and protection to scientists and environmentalists involved in the collection of information underpinning environmental governance and justice would be another welcomed move; one way this could be achieved would be by widening the remits of the Aarhus Convention (UNECE, 2019). Together with its Protocol on Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers, this Convention protects every person's right to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being. The Convention and Protocol are the only global legally binding global instruments on environmental democracy that put Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development into practice. Whether we like it or not, we are engaged in an information war. Challenging the proliferation of fake news and ‘bad science’ (Goldacre, 2009) published in predatory journals (Sharma & Verma, 2018) and improving transparency in science are, thus also important steps to regain credibility and reassert the difference between opinion and evidence among the general public. In that respect, Journal of Applied Ecology welcomes contributions that review the evidence base behind unfounded claims and provide clear summaries of management or policy-relevant science. Moreover, the nascent impact agenda (Jordan & Carrigan, 2018) may sometimes inadvertently facilitate the proliferation of biased, incorrect scientific news in media outlets, as scientists struggle to balance scientific accuracy with sensationalism, pressures from press officers, and the chance to see their work covered by national media outlets. We, as scientists, need to take a leading role in communicating our science to a wider audience and acknowledge the responsibility we have to get our facts right. Many would agree that the scale of the environmental challenges ahead of us has never been greater than now (Lambertini, 2017). To successfully address these challenges will require finding socially just and evidence-based solutions underpinned by a mix of local and global action. Yet achieving this is sometimes threatened by governments themselves, who may or the ability of scientists and environmental practitioners to undertake their For science to help the current global environmental applied ecologists need to be to data in safety and to robust evidence to decision from or Journal of Applied Ecology is more than a the is ultimately to and support the global community of applied ecologists to the of its and are fundamental in us our aim of a evidence base for scientists, managers and something we to be in an era of fake We also see this as a first step in dialogue around the increasing and threats to being an applied We are very in on the issues as as they can address without personal We also our where we can if there are The of Journal of Applied Ecology as well as an international who to for their on of this have not been this not

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.