Is Conservation Biology a Scientifically Legitimate DisciplineSandra Neill and Mart R. Gross

Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Toronto

A postulate of conservation biology is that biotic diversity has intrinsic value (Soulé 1985). A quarter century after the discipline’s inception, many conservation biologists still contend that society’s investment in conserving biodiversity is justified by its intrinsic value (Van Dyke 2008, Noss 1994, Callicott 1986). However, others have challenged whether intrinsic value is meaningful or useful for decision-making (Justus et al 2009). I addressed this challenge by empirically testing three hypotheses about intrinsic value in conservation biology. First, intrinsic value is a foundational concept within conservation biology. This predicts that conservation biology textbooks will universally accept intrinsic value. My examination of the current field of conservation biology textbooks and foundational documents (n=14) confirms this prediction. Second, intrinsic value is not reducible to physical properties, a requirement of science. I tested the prediction that intrinsic value originated in religion and remains metaphysical in conservation biology by searching back from current scientific literature to classical ethics ca. 2390 BP. Results confirmed an independent analysis by Van Dyke (2003). Third, future conservation professionals are adopting the prevailing view that intrinsic value is real. I surveyed University of Toronto conservation biology students (n=58) and discovered that 66% view intrinsic value as an objectively real property, and 80% are unclear about the subjective nature of valuation. Therefore, my research confirms the hypotheses that intrinsic value is a foundational concept within current conservation biology, and is accepted by future conservation biologists even though it is not a scientifically legitimate concept. The discipline of conservation biology is thus vulnerable to the challenge that it is a non-scientific enterprise.

Abstract

• Conservation biology is vulnerable to the challenge that it is a non-scientific enterprise• Intrinsic value originated in religion and remains metaphysical in conservation biology• Acceptance of intrinsic value by conservation biology textbooks indicates the centrality of this concept to the discipline• Textbooks reflect the dominant discourse of a discipline and shape the views of future professionals in the field• Intrinsic value is accepted by future conservation biologists even though it is not a scientifically legitimate concept

Discussion

Callicott, J. B. 1986. On the intrinsic value of nonhuman species. In The Preservation of Species, ed. B. G. Norton. Princeton University Press. New Jersey.Justus, J., Colyvan, M., Regan, H. and Maguire, L. 2009. Buying into conservation: intrinsic versus instrumental value. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. Vol 24, No 4: 187-191.Mackie, J.L. 1977. Inventing Right and Wrong. Pelican Books. London.Noss, R. F. and A.F. Cooperrider. 1994. Saving Nature’s Legacy. Island Press.Odenbaugh, J. 2007. Sahotra Sarkhar, Biodiversity and Environmental Philosophy: An Introduction. Cambridge University Press.Soulé, Michael. 1985. What is conservation biology? Bioscience, Vol 35: 727-734.Taylor, B. 2005. Encyclopaedia of Religion and Nature. Continuum. London.Van Dyke, F. 2008. Conservation Biology: Foundations, Concepts, Applications, 2nd ed. Springer.

References

1. Analysis of ten conservation biology textbooks and four foundational documents indicates that acceptance of intrinsic value is universal in conservation biology.

• Society of Conservation Biology emphasizes intrinsic value in its statement of principles.• Convention on Biological Diversity and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment accept intrinsic value. • Conservation biologists prioritize the scientific method, but acceptance of intrinsic value is ubiquitous: it is a foundational concept of the discipline.• Reflects the influence of conservation biology founder Michael Soulé. “What is Conservation Biology?” (1985) affirms the intrinsic value of biota as one of four normative postulates of the discipline.

Results

2. A comprehensive literature search revealed two distinct uses of intrinsic value: metaphysical and non-metaphysical.

Biblical originsPosits intrinsic value as an objectively real property of things

Used quantitatively, but is not quantifiableFound in theology, natural law, and moral philosophyAppears in work of naturalist John Muir (early 20th c.)Adopted by environmental ethics despite criticism that normative claims are of low political use value (Odenbaugh 2007)

Originated with Plato approximately 2390 BPAscribes intrinsic value to mental states (e.g. pleasure, absence of pain) Used qualitatively—requires no quantitative corroborationFound in aesthetic, political, and analytic philosophy

Metaphysical Intrinsic Value Non-metaphysical Intrinsic Value

H1: Intrinsic value is a foundational concept within conservation biology.H2: Intrinsic value is not reducible to physical properties, a requirement of science.H3: Future conservation professionals are adopting the prevailing view that intrinsic value is real.

1. Analysis of conservation biology textbooks and foundational legal and academic documents (n=14). Prediction: Conservation biology textbooks and foundational documents will universally accept intrinsic value. 2. Literature search from present back to ca. 2390 BP to trace intrinsic value origins. Prediction: Intrinsic value originated in religion and remains metaphysical in conservation biology.

Methods

3. Survey of University of Toronto conservation biology students (n=58) for their views on biodiversity valuation. Data exploration and analysis done with Predictive Analytics Software (PASW). Prediction: Future conservation professionals are adopting the prevailing view that intrinsic value is real.

Database Specific Journals Search StringsWeb of ScienceScholars Portal

Conservation BiologyBiological ConservationTrends in Ecology and EvolutionBiodiversity and Conservation Environmental EthicsWorld Wide Web

Conservation biology AND intrinsic valueConservation biology AND extrinsic valueConservation biology AND instrumental valueConservation biology AND valuationConservation biology AND values Conservation biology decision-makingConservation biology AND environmental ethicsConservation biology AND ethicsConservation biology AND decision theoryIntrinsic AND extrinsic valueMichael Soulé AND Arne NaessIntrinsic value AND objections

Origins of Intrinsic Value

Objectors to Metaphysical Usage

Thomas Hobbes 17th c.

David Hume 18th c.

A. Hagerstrom 19th c.

J.L. Mackie 1970s

Peter Singer 1980s

J. Justus, M. ColyvanH. Regan, L. Maguire

2008, 2009, 2010

3. Survey results indicate future conservation professionals are adopting the prevailing viewthat intrinsic value is real.

• Both “intrinsic” and “extrinsic“ values of biota are subjective: 12 respondents• Both “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” values of biota are objectively real: 10 respondents• “Intrinsic” value is subjective, but “extrinsic” value is objective: 8 respondents• “Intrinsic” value is objective, but “extrinsic” value is subjective: 28 respondents

Just twelve respondents (20.7%) identified values as subjective. 17.2% felt that all values are objective, and 62.1% felt that some values are objective and others are subjective. In all, 79.3% of respondents were unclear about the subjective nature of valuation.

Cross-tabulation results: Do you think that extrinsic value of biota is objectively real or subjective*Do you think that intrinsic value of biota is objectively real or subjective

Do you think that intrinsicvalue of biota is:

Objectively real Subjective Total

Do you think that extrinsic value of biota is:

Objectively real

Subjective

Total

10

28

38

8

12

20

18

40

58

65.5% 34.5% 100.0%% of Total

Do you think that intrinsicvalue of biota is:

Objectively real

Subjective

Total

10 8 18

28 12 40

38

17.2% 13.8% 31.0%

48.3% 20.7% 69.0%

Count% of TotalCount% of TotalCount

Objectively realDo you think that extrinsic value of biota is:

Total

Subjective

5820

Metaphysical Usage

Book of Genesisca. 2570 BP

Pico Della Mirandola 15th c.

Avicenna 11th c.

Averroes 12th c.

Michael Soulé, J.B. Callicott, Holmes Rolston III

1980s

Reed Noss 1990s

John Muir early 20th c.

Arne Naess 1970s

M. Sagoff, R.Primack, M. Hunter, F. Van Dyke, A. Pullin, M. Groom, G. Meffe, C. Carrol 2000s

Breakdown

Cross-tabulation ResultsRanking of importance of biodiversity (1 = low 5 = high ) cross-tabulated with response to question “Do you think that extrinsic value of biota is objectively real, or subjective”

Do you think that EXtrinsicvalue of biota is:

Objectively real Subjective Total

importance of biodiversity 1 = low5 = high

Total

0

10

8

2

14

24

2

24

32

18 40 58

3

4

5

Count

Count

Count

Count

2

24

32

58

Do you think that INtrinsicvalue of biota is:

Objectively real Subjective Total

importance of biodiversity 1 = low5 = high

Total

2

12

24

0

12

8

38 20

3

4

5

Count

Count

Count

Cross-tabulation ResultsRanking of importance of biodiversity (1 = low 5 = high ) cross-tabulated with response to question “Do you think that intrinsic value of biota is objectively real, or subjective”

Count

Non-MetaphysicalUsage

Plato ca. 2390 BP

G.E. Moore

Immanuel Kant 18th c.

Jeremy BenthamJohn Stewart Mill 19th c.

Bertrand Russell 20th c.

Aristotle ca. 2365 BP

Transferred from environmental ethics (EE) to conservation biology (CB) due to influence of EE on CB founder Michael Soulé (Taylor 2005)

Respondents who ranked the importance of biodiversity as 5 (highest) were more likely than respondents who ranked the importance of biodiversity as 4 to view the intrinsic value of biota as objectively real.

Respondents who ranked the importance of biodiversity as 5 (highest) were more likely than respondents who ranked the importance of biodiversity as 4 to view the extrinsic value of biota as subjective.

Do you think that INtrinsic value in boita is:

Objectively real

Subjective

3 4 53 4 5Do you think that EXtrinsic value in boita is:

Objectively real

Subjective

importance of biodiversity 1 = low 5 = highimportance of biodiversity 1 = low 5 = high

2010 Conservation Biology for All. Oxford University Press. pp15, 183, 306 2008 A Primer of Conservation Biology, 4th ed. Sinauer. p66 2008 Conservation Biology: Foundations, Concepts, Applications, 2nd ed. Springer. p332007 Fundamentals of conservation Biology, 3rd ed. Blackwell. p37-40 2006 Principles of Conservation Biology, 3rd ed. Sinauer. p19-20

2005 Practical Conservation Biology. Csiro Publishing. pp8, 20, 22, 23, 24

2004 Principles of Conservation Biology: Recommended Guidelines for Conservation Literacy from the Education Committee of the Society for Conservation Biology. Conservation Biology Volume 18, No. 5: 1180-1190. pp1182, 1183, 11882004 Biodiversity: An Introduction, 2nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell. Section 4.4 2003 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: A Framework for Assessment. Island Press. pp1-252002 Conservation Biology. Cambridge University Press. p1451998 Conservation Science and Action. Blackwell. p181997 Biodiversity: Exploring Values and Priorities in Conservation. Blackwell. pp18, 431992 Convention on Biological Diversity, Preamble.1985 What Is Conservation Biology? BioScience Vol 35, No 11: 727-734. p731, 732

Date

Trombulak, S., Omland, K., Robinson, J., Brown, G., Domroese, M.

Sodhi, N. and Ehrlich, P.

Van Dyke, F.Hunter, M., and Gibbs, J.Groom, M.J., Meffe, G.K., and Carroll, C.R.

Primack, R.

Lindenmayer, D. and Burgman, M.

Gaston, K. and Spicer, J.United NationsPullin, A.Sutherland, W.Perlman, D. and Adelson, GUnited NationsSoulé, M.

Source Author/s