Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32536896›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2020

Compassionate Conservation Clashes With Conservation Biology: Should Empathy, Compassion, and Deontological Moral Principles Drive Conservation Practice?

Andrea S Griffin, Alex Callen, Kaya Klop-Toker, Robert J Scanlon, Matt W Hayward

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Animal Harms and Food Production: Informing Ethical Choices.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2021
    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

5 authors.

Andrea S GriffinAnimal Behaviour and Cognition Lab, School of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Alex CallenConservation Biology Research Group, School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Kaya Klop-TokerConservation Biology Research Group, School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Robert J ScanlonConservation Biology Research Group, School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.
Matt W HaywardConservation Biology Research Group, School of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

"Compassionate Conservation" is an emerging movement within conservation science that is gaining attention through its promotion of "ethical" conservation practices that place empathy and compassion and the moral principles of "first, do no harm" and "individuals matter" at the forefront of conservation practice. We have articulated elsewhere how Compassionate Conservation, if adopted, could be more harmful for native biodiversity than any other conservation action implemented thus far, while also causing more net harm to individuals than it aims to stop. Here, we examine whether empathy, compassion and inflexible adherence to moral principles form a solid basis upon which to meet the goals of conservation biology as specified by pioneers in the discipline. Specifically, we examine a large empirical literature demonstrating that empathy is subject to significant biases and that inflexible adherence to moral rules can result in a "do nothing" approach. In light of this literature, we argue that our emotional systems have not evolved to provide a reliable basis for making decisions as to how best to ensure the long-term persistence of our planet. Consequently, in its most radical form, the Compassionate Conservation philosophy should not be enshrined as a legalized guiding principle for conservation action.

Indexed as

compassioncompassionate conservationconservation decision makingempathyethical bias

Identifiers

PMID32536896
PMCPMC7269110

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.