Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T07:29:11.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conservation science – a creative tension

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2009

Gary K. Meffe
Gary K. Meffe
Affiliation:
Professor at the University of Georgia and the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory, and is senior author of Principles of Conservation Biology (Sinauer Associates, 1994).
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Conservation science is born of an inherent conflict. On one hand it is based in science, an objective, value-free search for truth that leads to general laws, with no a priori desire for particular outcomes. On the other hand it is clearly driven by value–laden goals related to making the human–nature relationship an enduring one. In contrast to an objective science, particular outcomes – such as preservation of biodiversity and protection or restoration of functioning ecosystems – are clearly pursued in conservation. The result is a sometimes uncomfortable merging of two human endeavours – one objective and one value-laden – that are inherently antagonistic and can result in tension. To make this tension creative, rather than destructive, we need to understand how both components are necessary and synergistic in forming a complete conservation science.

Type
Savannah Perspective
Information
Oryx , Volume 30 , Issue 4 , October 1996 , pp. 226 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © Fauna and Flora International 1996

References

Gunderson, L.H., Light, S.S. and Holling, C.S. 1995. Lessons from the Everglades. Bioscience Supplement, 66–73.Google Scholar
Lovejoy, T.E. 1995. Will expectedly the top blow off? Bioscience Supplement, 3–6.Google Scholar
Meffe, G.K. and Viederman, S. 1995. Combining science and policy in conservation biology. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 23, 327–332.Google Scholar