The Nature Conservancy's Commitment to Science

The Post's online sidebar about the Conservancy's science programs distorts the findings of our External Science Review Committee and uses a personnel dispute in our Wyoming office to create the false impression of an organization that is not committed to science.

The implication that we are moving away from our roots as a science-based organization could not be further from the truth. Good science has always been and will remain our hallmark. We use sound science to guide our actions, from deciding where to work, to the methods we employ to conserve ecosystems and target species.

The online sidebar quotes extensively from the report of the Conservancy's External Science Review Committee, which we commissioned in 2000 to ensure that our science capacity was sufficient to meet the organization's changing needs for conservation science. We turned to outside, independent scientists to help us evaluate our organization's science capacity and implementation. The Post cited the report's negative comments, but none of its positive comments. The Post selectively plucked quotes from the staff survey while skirting the far more complex and substantive issues raised in the review.

After the report was issued in 2001, newly appointed President Steve McCormick acted quickly to make changes recommended in the report. These changes have been difficult in some cases, and some good scientists left the organization as a result of the uncertainty change always brings. You can view the report of the External Science Review Committee.

To address some of the erroneous and misleading points made by the Post:

• Publishing by Conservancy scientists is encouraged by the organization's leadership. In the past year, the rate of publication has more than doubled. Since Steve McCormick became president, papers written by Conservancy scientists have appeared in prestigious journals such as Science, Nature, Ecological Applications, Bioscience and Conservation Biology.
• There is no "thought police" at the Conservancy. Although papers submitted for publication are reviewed by peers, there is no mechanism or policy by which anyone can control what a Conservancy scientist says in his or her publication.
• Among the large research projects funded in FY03 is a study examining the impact of grazing on biodiversity. We do not avoid candid assessments of contentious issues such as this.
• The Conservancy is leading the way among conservation organizations in documenting the implications of climate change for existing conservation projects. We do not avoid this topic in our research or conservation plans.
• The vast majority of Conservancy scientists and science talent and innovation is in the field – not at our Worldwide Office in Arlington—spread throughout all 27 countries in which we work. The dispersing of scientists in the field is a deliberate management strategy for better connecting science to conservation work.