Systematic and persistent bias against invasion science: Framing conservation scientists

作者：Daniel Simberloff, Alejandro Bortolus, James T. Carlton, Franck Courchamp, Ross N. Cuthbert, Philip E. Hulme, Julie L. Lockwood, Laura A. Meyerson, Martín A. Núñez, Anthony Ricciardi, David M. Richardson, Evangelina Schwindt · 发表于：BioScience · 年份：2024 · DOI：10.1093/biosci/biae029 · 被引用次数：12 · 研究领域：Species Distribution and Climate Change、Plant and animal studies、Ecology and Vegetation Dynamics Studies

Pereyra and colleagues (2024) accused conservation scientists of bias against nonnative species and asserted that this bias casts doubt on the findings of the entire field of invasion biology. They based this argument on a subjective review of the introduction sections of 300 publications on the ecological effects of nonnative species, which they scored in terms of how they thought these introductions were framed: positive if framed as a conservation opportunity, neutral if framed as an ecological phenomenon, and negative if framed only as a conservation problem. They scored 66% of the articles as negative, 33% as neutral, and 1% as positive. Furthermore, they found no notable differences in the degree of negative framing across taxonomic groups, habitat types, and geographic regions, leading to their assertion of an overall bias pervading all published research on nonnative species. Pereyra and colleagues (2024) also speculated that the zebra mussel invasion in North America strongly influenced the early establishment of the bias and that the greatest percentage of negatively framed publications was from North America. However, in their view, the bias is universal. Their explanation for the perceived bias is that “the diversity of views found across society is not allowed to express itself freely in academic spaces” and that “there is evidence that there is a concerted effort to stifle divergent voices.” They were ambivalent about whether a scientific consensus on the ecolog...