Here at Iowa State, all of us students will be introduced at some point to one form or another of science. Whether it is a physical science such as chemistry, a social science like psychology or that pesky math requirement you cannot get your advisor to waive, science abounds at our university.

The term science itself usually refers to a method of study — a way to make sure any observations or ideas are being objectively analyzed. That objectivity is what makes science so universal. No matter what your personal beliefs or experiences are, scientific study ensures that everyone will see the same result.

Sometimes, however, the objectivity of scientists can be in doubt. Such was the case with the famous “climate-gate” scandal of 2009, in which several climate change doubters exposed emails from numerous scientists actively working with climate change data.

The emails in question were purported to prove a scientific conspiracy designed to make the world believe in a fictional climate shift, but independent investigations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Commerce and the National Science Foundation among other committees from various countries, such as the International Science Assessment Panel of the United Kingdom, found no evidence of fraudulent practices.

While the deniers who started the scandal were wrong, making sure scientists are being objective is not a bad thing. It is the reason for peer review, a process by which scientific articles seeking to be published must first be reviewed by other scientists working in related fields.

Areas of science where personal biases will be more likely to surface are those in which value judgements or extensive interpretations of data must be made. One of the most striking examples of this kind of scientific study is the field of conservation biology.

Conservation biology is a subfield of biology that deals exclusively with gathering information to effectively conserve diversity of life at any and all levels of organization, commonly called biodiversity.

While conservation efforts are almost always working to stop or reverse harm to other lifeforms that was directly caused by human action, the whole notion of conserving biodiversity rests on the assumption that biodiversity in general is good. This is a normative statement and is a judgement of value.

Michael Soule, one of the founding members of the Society for Conservation Biology, recognized this but instead of shying away, embraced the idea. Soule came up with several normative statements that define and guide the field of conservation biology, including the statement that biodiversity is good, evolution is good and that biodiversity has intrinsic value.

These statements may seem to cast a veil of doubt on any work done by conservation biologists, but that is not necessarily the case.

The belief that biodiversity is good cannot alter data, cannot fabricate population numbers and cannot make replication of falsified results any easier. Such actions are committed only by individuals who do not understand or care for good science.

By being upfront and open about how their field is based off of a value judgement, conservation biologists show themselves to be interested in good, meaningful science. Just as criminologists, whose field is based off of the notion that crime is bad, are trusted to be responsible scientists, conservation biologists must be given the same professional respect.

After all, scientists are people, and as such they carry the same number of prejudices, biases and beliefs as everyone else. The only difference between scientists and nonscientists is that the former must subject their work and ideas to an objective system of study.

When that objective system is in place, as it is in the scientific community that comprises and monitors conservation biology, personal biases can be overcome.

Even though a scientist who studies polar bear populations may become endeared to the animals and may even advocate for polar bear conservation efforts, any scientific findings will stand on their own merit. Such findings can be judged by any other person as objectively as is possible.

Conservation, then, is composed of science and opinion to be sure, but the two remain as distinct as possible.

——————————————————————————————-

Phil Brown is a senior in political science, biology and environmental studies from Emmetsburg, Iowa.