Published

8 October 2017 PLoS Ecology Blog

http://blogs.plos.org/ecology/2017/10/18/an-interdisciplinary-perspective-on-invasive-alien-species/

An Interdisciplinary Perspective on
Invasive Alien Species
Posted October 18, 2017 by Jeff Atkins in Academia, Biodiversity, Ecology, Guest Post, Invasive Species

A guest post from Susanna Lidstrm from the KTH Royal Institute of Technology and
Simon West of the Stockholm Resilience Centre

Recently, Russell and Blackburn argued that critique of the invasive alien species (IAS)
concept constitutes science denialismthe rejection of basic facts and concepts that are
well-supported. While others have robustly challenged this claim (2, 3, 4), we situate the
debate in the context of broader shifts in interdisciplinary environmental studies and
associated understandings of science-society relations. The relationships between
values and evidence are a classic point of conflict and misunderstanding in the natural
sciences, and between the natural and social sciences and humanities. The way forward
is not to play down the role of values in science, but to better understand their
interaction.

Russell and Blackburns argument hinges on an imagined ability to clearly demarcate the
definition of IAS and their impacts (both acknowledged to include subjective elements),
from the measurement of these impacts. Those who do not clearly establish this
demarcation are derided as science denialists, motivated by laissez-faire free market
ideologies.

However, research in the environmental social sciences and humanities has

demonstrated the impossibility of definitively separating definitions of human-
environment phenomena from measurement of impacts (5, 6, 7). The definition of a
phenomenon colours what is measured, how it is measured, and how the results are
interpreted. Rather than constituting science denialism, this research has enhanced our
understanding of how ecological knowledge is produced and used in society. Far from
 Published 8 October 2017 PLoS Ecology Blog
http://blogs.plos.org/ecology/2017/10/18/an-interdisciplinary-perspective-on-invasive-alien-species/


having disingenuous motivations, scholars have largely been motivated by the need to
understand how science together with other sources of knowledge may be better
used to address complex socio-environmental issues like IAS (11).

The definition of invasive and alien species is shaped by values, metaphors and interests
as a large body of critical literature on IAS across the natural and social sciences and
humanities has made clear (9, 10, 11). Values and metaphors do not undermine
scientific rigour. They are an essential part of science indeed, they are crucial for
understanding anything at all. The critique of IAS is therefore generally not that IAS is a
troubling concept because it is value-laden per se, but raises the question of whether it is
a useful lens for collecting and interpreting ecological data, and for framing our
understanding of human-environment relations.

For some, including Russell and Blackburn, the answer to this question is yes
predominantly because of the (presumed) power of the IAS metaphor to exert policy
impacts. For others, however, the answer is no. Many ecologists find that the metaphor
poorly reflects the complexity of ecological relationships. Viewed from the social sciences
and humanities the rhetoric surrounding IAS has uncomfortable resonances with
xenophobic modes of thinking and acting that ascribe inherent and essentialist good
and bad identities to different species, giving the impression that these are
characteristics present in the natural world rather than value judgements made by people
[9]. Whichever perspective on IAS is adopted, the relationships between values and
evidence are inextricable and not easily parsed by the simple adoption of, e.g. decision
science tools. Rather they require deeper, on-going discussions about how we know and
act in relation to the environment, and honest, reflexive conversations about what
motivates us and what we value.

These debates are tricky to navigate because different disciplines carry different
assumptions, expectations of research, and understandings of the relationships between
subjectivity and objectivity. Debates are often highly charged.

In very broad terms, natural science tends to progress within paradigms, while the social
sciences and humanities proceed by debating the assumptions of paradigms. Russell
and Blackburn acknowledge that questioning paradigms is at times important. We
suggest that a continual critique of paradigms is essential to the progression of science.
Russell and Blackburn state that when questioning paradigms scientists must be mindful
of their own underlying motivations and values (5). We agree, but this is not only
applicable to those making the critique, but to all scientists at all times, especially those
in the normative crisis discipline of conservation biology. Indeed, it is the uncomfortable
questions of value and motivation in scientific knowledge raised by critiques of IAS that
Russell and Blackburn appear unprepared to address hence the rush to label those
who raise them science denialists.

Superficial understanding of the relationships between evidence and values creates

exactly the dichotomization between science believers and denialists that Russell and
Blackburn ostensibly seek to avoid. Rather than standing up for science such
dichotomization undermines it, rendering aspects of scientific enterprise off limits to the
kinds of rigorous critical (self) examination fostered by science at its best. We suggest
that instead of name-calling, Russell and Blackburns stated aim to foster vibrant and
robust dialogue around IAS is best served by opening up science through increased
co-design and co-production of research, and involvement of experts and perspectives
 Published 8 October 2017 PLoS Ecology Blog
http://blogs.plos.org/ecology/2017/10/18/an-interdisciplinary-perspective-on-invasive-alien-species/


from a variety of disciplines and societal sectors (Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.). This will help build new models of science-society interaction that can effectively
negotiate rather than deny the role of values in ecological science.

Susanna Lidstrm (susanna.lidstrom@abe.kth.se)

Simon West (simon.west@su.se)

References (Hyperlinks in text)

1. Russell, J.C. and Blackburn, T.M. (2016) The rise of invasive species
denialism. Ecol. Evol. 32, 36
2. Tassin, J. et al. (2017) Determining whether the impacts of introduced species are
negative cannot be based solely on science: a response to Russell and
Blackburn. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32(4), 230231
3. Crowley, S.L. et al. (2017) Disagreement about invasive species does not equate to
denialism: a response to Russell and Blackburn. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32(4), 228229
4. Davis, A.D. and Chew, M.K. (2017) The denialists are coming! Well, not exactly: a
response to Russell and Blackburn. Trends Ecol. Evol. 32(4), 229230
5. Forsyth, T. (2003) Critical Political Ecology: The Politics of Environmental
Science. London: Routledge
6. Sarewitz, D. (2004) How science makes environmental controversies
worse. Environmental Science & Policy 7(5), 385403
7. Leach, M. et al. (2010) Dynamic Sustainabilities: Technology, Environment, Social
Justice. London and New York: Earthscan
8. Funtowicz, S. and Ravetz, J. (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 31(7),
735755
9. Lidstrm, S. et al. (2015) Invasive narratives and the inverse of slow violence: alien
species in science and society. Environmental Humanities 7, 140
10. Frawley, J., and McCalman, I. (2014) Rethinking invasion ecologies from the
environmental humanities. London and New York: Routledge
11. Larson, B. (2011) Metaphors for environmental sustainability: redefining our
relationship with nature. New Haven: Yale University Press
12. Mauser, W. et al . (2013) Transdisciplinary global change research: the co-creation
of knowledge for sustainability. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 5(3-
4), 420431