How do scientists make judgments that require consideration of ‘the best available science’ under conditions of high uncertainty?  To gain insight into this question, we surveyed a group of grizzly bear researchers.  We found that the majority of experts recommended continued listing of bears, and that experts who were employed by state and federal agencies were 2-3 times more likely to recommend delisting grizzlies than their academic colleagues.  This research is discussed in an article published today by The Conversation.  You can also find a complete report of the project here.

 
avatar
About The Author

Jeremy Bruskotter

Dr. Jeremy Bruskotter is an associate professor in the School of Environment and Natural Resources at the Ohio State University where his research interests are centered around the human dimensions” of wildlife conservation and management. Jeremy is passionate about wildlife–at one time or another, he has called himself hunter, angler, and wildlife photographer. Most of all, Jeremy is concerned with bringing the tools and techniques of the social sciences to bear on pressing issues in wildlife management.

8 Responses to Of bears and biases: Scientific Judgment and the Fate of Yellowstone’s Grizzlies

  1. avatar Ida Lupines says:

    Happy to see a post from JB!

  2. avatar Mareks Vilkins says:

    Our data suggest that conservation judgments were influenced not so much by an expert’s knowledge or assessment of risk but more so by their social environment; in particular, the peers with whom an expert regularly interacts and respects.

  3. avatar Kyle says:

    Thanks Jeremy – in such cases of uncertainty (and they are legion) wouldn’t it be appropriate to properly apply (emphasis here) the precautionary principle or some version of it?

    • avatar rork says:

      In decision theory, things like “precautionary principle” are supposed to be “baked in” to the calculation. It’s not a separate piece laying off to the side to fly in as a tie-breaker. It is part of the loss function (at least in the language I speak – Structured Decision Making might use another term, like “the objective function”).
      We try to maximize the subjective expected utility (MSEU), as Savage taught us. The problem is we don’t agree on the SEU.

      Thanks, JB: Beautifully written, as usual.

  4. avatar Cody Coyote says:

    Well, one of the criteria for Delisting is an analysis of socioeconomic impacts. I guess ” Job Protection” fits that.

    Less facetiously , it’s good to see this bias quantified. I’ve been saying as much for many a year, but could only claim it was anecdotal till now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Calendar

June 2016
S M T W T F S
« May   Jul »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Quote

‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: