Editorial: So you want to be a Jedi? Advice for conservation researchers wanting to advocate for their findings

Itisacommonoccurrenceamongenvironmentalscienceandconservation biology students or researchers; after spendingyears studying environmental issues and collecting data onharmful pollutants or declining species, they want to dosomething about it. They want to stop extinction or warnthepublicaboutthesurvivalthreatstheyhaveidentified.Buttoo frequently, the academic community insists that re-searchers must simply publish their research and then standback and let others use it for advocacy.It has been suggested that the average readership of azoological paper is fewer than half a dozen people (Wagnerand Walker 2005), and this is the average. Many papers willbe read by fewer people than that. The most frequently citedrecentpaperinthejournalConservationBiology(Sutherlandet al. 2009) had an average of 22 citations a year, which isapparently 50 % higher than the next most frequently citedpaper for that journal (and in turn, the journal ConservationBiologyhasthehighestimpactfactorinitsfield).So,ifjustacouple dozen citations are considered to be high readershipand high impact within the academic community (let alonethe public), how is your study going to get to the ears of thepeople who count?Basically,youhavetogetoutthereandsellityourself.Noone else will do it. You have to advocate for your view.Certainly, those causing conservation problems are advocat-ing theirs—the logging or oil companies destroying forestsand the chemical companies leaching toxins have lobbyists“on the Hill” or media consultants and PR companiesemployed to spread their message.However, there is a significant debate as to whetherenvironmental/conservation scientists should also be advocates(Shrader-Frechette 1996;Lackey2007;Chan2008;NelsonandVucetich 2009). For many scientists, the term “advocate” con-jures up images of the more extreme and sensationalist NGOs,such as PETA, Sea Shepherd, or Greenpeace. For many scien-tists, advocacy is a dirty word, implying that by stepping out ofthe ivory tower, you are somehow lowering and sullying your-self, are throwing away your objectivity, or are no longer a“real” scientist. But as Noss (2007) notes, there are sloppyscientists, and there are advocates, and they are two entirelydifferentthings.Butstill,manyscientistsfeelthattobeinvolvedin advocacy is somehow unethical or “against the code.” Con-versely, especially if you are involved in the environmentalfield, to stand on the sidelines and not get involved is arguablyunethical. To quote Edmund Burke: “Allthatisnecessaryforthe triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. ”Inthebestsense,advocatingforconservation/environmentalscience simply means ensuring its results get into the hands ofrelevant people in a format that is clearly understandable. Thatis not sacrificing your objectivity or integrity or being a poorscientist. It is simply communicating science to a wide andappropriateaudience.Assuch,environmentalandconservationscientistsshouldnotbeafraid,asChan(2008)neatlyphrasesit,to “advocate for advocacy.”So if you want to become more engaged in trying to getyourresearchtotherightearsandtoturnyourstudyfindingsintorealenvironmentalaction,whatshouldyoudo?Herearesome suggestions:1. Get helpThere are lots of environmental NGOs out there; theyare involved in advocacy full time. Make the most oftheir experience to identify whom to contact and how tocontact them. They may even be interested in your workand help promote it. You need not act alone.2. Learn to communicateYou need to get your research to the people whocount, and often, this may be a busy policy maker, who