Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30624797›Full record

ArticleConservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology2019

On allegations of invasive species denialism.

David Munro, Jamie Steer, Wayne Linklater

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. How much biotic nativeness matters across human demographic groups.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Debate over the importance and meaning of native range in invasion biology: reply to Courchamp et al.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2020
    Article
  4. A moral panic over cats.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2019
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

David MunroCentre for Biodiversity and Restoration Ecology, Victoria University of Wellington, P.O. Box 600, Wellington, 6140, New Zealand.
Jamie SteerBiodiversity Department, Greater Wellington Regional Council, Wellington, New Zealand.
Wayne LinklaterCentre for Biodiversity and Restoration Ecology, Victoria University of Wellington, P.O. Box 600, Wellington, 6140, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-2627-693X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Science denialism retards evidenced-based policy and practice and should be challenged. It has been a particular concern for mitigating global environmental issues, such as anthropogenic climate change. But allegations of science denialism must also be well founded and evidential or they risk eroding public trust in science and scientists. Recently, 77 published works by scholars, scientists, and science writers were identified as containing invasive species denialism (ISD; i.e., rejection of well-supported facts about invasive species, particularly the global scientific consensus about their negative impacts). We reevaluated 75 of these works but could find no examples of refutation of scientific facts and only 5 articles with text perhaps consistent with one of the 5 characteristics of science denialism. We found, therefore, that allegations of ISD were misplaced. These accusations of science denialism may have arisen because invasion biology defines its subjects-invasive species-based on multiple subjective and normative judgments. Thus, more than other applied sciences its consensus is one of shared values as much as agreed knowledge. Criticisms of invasion biology have largely targeted those subjective and normative judgments and their global imposition, not the knowledge on which the discipline is based. Regrettably, a few invasion biologists have misinterpreted the critique of their values-based consensus as a denial of their science when it is not. To make invasion biology a more robust and widely accepted science and to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings and conflicts, invasion biologists could be more accepting of perspectives originating from other disciplines and more open to values-based critique from scholars and scientists outside their field. This recommendation applies to all conservation sciences, especially those addressing global challenges, because these sciences must serve and be relevant to communities with an extraordinary diversity of cultures and values.

Indexed as

Conservation of Natural ResourcesIntroduced SpeciesPolicybiología de la invasióndatosdiscoursediscursofactsinvasion biologynegación de la ciencianormativenormativoscience denialismsubjectivesubjetivovaloresvalues否定科学主义, 入侵生物学, 价值观, 事实, 论述, 规范性, 主观性

Identifiers

PMID30624797
PMCPMC6850308

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.