The Journal of Wildlife Management published this essay acknowledging the fact that SCIENCE is under siege by the majority of Conservative thinkers whose world view is shaped by the feeling that everything on Earth is here to be exploited by Man...........that God created the world in 7 days .............that there is no such thing as evolution.............that any adverse impacts(weather fluctuations, extermination of animals and plants) that take place are ordained by the creator and that mans genius and technology will constantly finds ways to adapt and overcome the new obstacles and resource shortages that our greed and short term actions generate------As frightening as this is to me, Scientists must become better Salesmen........................must find ways to bring the message of fact meaningful to the majority of people who are blind followers of the monotheistic beliefs that have ruled human beings for the past 2 to 5000 years

PUBLIC DENIAL OF SCIENCE AND THE ROLE OF PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES
Those of us living in developed countries like the United States are highly dependent on the products of science in our daily lives—whether we're driving, flying, texting, surfing the Web, receiving medical care, or enjoying a well-cooked meal. Most U.S. citizens are exposed to the basics of science beginning in elementary school, and we experience or read about scientific advancements throughout our lives. Why, then, do members of the public and elected representatives seem increasingly less inclined to accept what they hear from scientists, even when there is broad consensus about an issue within the scientific community? Why are scientists—a once-revered group of highly trained professionals—increasingly being characterized as driven by their own political agendas and therefore not to be trusted?

This is a troubling trend, and it's coming at a time in human history when using science as a basis for complex natural resource decision making is more critical than ever. Our natural resources are under siege, the stakeholder universe has changed, and the diversity of views—some of which are becoming less rational and more extreme—has made wildlife management and conservation more complex. The Wildlife Society strongly contends that the most effective way to face these challenges is to promote valid science as the basis for wildlife management and conservation. How the public and key decision makers view science and scientists is therefore of utmost importance to our professional community.

The Roots of Denial
Public rejection or disbelief of science often involves two major and highly controversial areas: evolution and anthropogenic climate change. Scientific evidence and the mainstream scientific community strongly support both concepts as indisputable facts. Yet many in the general public simply aren't buying it. We're even seeing a rise in the numbers of climate change and evolution "deniers" (Boelert 2010, Miller et al. 2006, National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine 2008, Newport 2010). That denial has multiple roots involving religion, politics, and other human complexities.

 Though I respect every individual's right to hold whatever personal beliefs they wish, I fear that those beliefs are, in some cases, exerting undue influence on policymaking and undermining the role of science as a foundation of policy decisions—much to the detriment of our natural resources.

Examples abound. Climate change deniers tend to believe that recent warming trends in Earth's climate are due to natural fluctuations rather than to human influences, even though science has shown that a rapid accumulation of atmospheric greenhouse gasses correlates to human use of fossil fuels and industrialization. Denial of that fact could lead to reluctance to work toward reductions in fossil-fuel use, an unsustainable course.

Likewise, many purveyors of the concepts known as "creationism" and "intelligent design" hold that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, that all of Earth's living creatures were created during a single event, and that these organisms (including humans) have not changed significantly over time. A wealth of scientific evidence—related to genetics, anatomy, and fossil and geologic records—refutes these views. In addition, creationism and intelligent design are not testable theories and therefore lie outside the realm of science.

The denial of science can have direct impacts on wildlife. There's ample scientific evidence, for example, that feral and free-ranging domestic cats are taking a significant toll on native wildlife worldwide, killing millions of birds, rodents, and other animals every year and threatening the existence of some at-risk species such as the Key Largo wood rat, Lower Keys marsh rabbit, and Hawaiian crow or 'Alalā. Yet many animal rights and cat advocate organizations (such as the Humane Society of the United States and Alley Cat Allies) ignore or deny the science about cats and instead attribute the loss of birds and small mammals to factors such as loss of habitat, pollution, and development. While those are indeed contributing factors, science proves that feral cats are voracious non-native predators that are compounding the problem and causing species extinctions on islands and local extirpations of some mainland bird and small mammal populations.

Education Alone Isn't an Answer
So what accounts for the science deniers and how should we as wildlife professionals react to the challenge? Scientists may assume that ignorance is the reason that people reject the cumulative wisdom gained through science. Consequently, many scientists think that improved education will help the deniers change their views. Education is certainly a necessary part of the solution, but it's not enough. Author Chris Mooney makes this point in a recent article in The Washington Post (Mooney 2010). He cites a series of workshops by the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAAS), which concludes that peoples' willingness to accept the results of science is based largely on their existing world views.

A "world view" can be defined as an individual's perspectives on the world, gained through upbringing, education, interactions with peers, experiences, and other factors such as age, race, economic status, political viewpoints, or religious beliefs. The workshops concluded that regardless of the validity of the science behind a given issue, people tend to accept information and concepts that are compatible with their world view and reject those that are incompatible.

To illustrate this point, Mooney cited a significantly higher rate of rejection of climate change science among well-educated Republicans when compared to well-educated Democrats. The apparent reason had to do with underlying differences in world views: Many Republicans were concerned that acceptance of climate change science would result in new (cap and trade) taxes, which they vehemently opposed. It was this belief that influenced their perspective on the science, not the validity of the science itself.

AAAS concluded that scientists must not only do a better job of communicating the results of scientific research, but also must strive to understand how underlying differences in world views impact acceptance or rejection of that science. As Mooney put it, scientists have to do more than just "lay out the facts" or "set the record straight." Rather, it is "critical that experts and policymakers better understand what motivates public concern in the first place."

In the case of feral cats, animal rights and cat advocates are motivated by a world view that focuses on protecting the welfare and "rights" of individual cats, not on protecting populations, species, or ecosystems. From that perspective, it is clear why they would reject any science—no matter how valid—that may result in harm to individual cats, and it's unlikely that education will alter their position.

 Wildlife professionals concerned about this issue may therefore need to shift their message by emphasizing that feral and outdoor cats are much more likely to live miserable lives and/or die prematurely through collisions with vehicles, disease, coyote predation, and other causes. This educational message about cat welfare—combined with the message that cats are causing native wild birds and other small animals to suffer and die—may resonate with people who care about their pets and also care about wildlife.

 Perhaps by using this approach we will eventually gain a rejection of ineffective TNR (trap-neuter-release) management and support of new municipal regulations aimed at keeping cats indoors. On the other hand, if compromise is not possible, wildlife proponents may have to use existing legal frameworks—such as the Endangered Species Act and Migratory Bird Protection Act—to demand greater protection for native wildlife from the onslaught of feral cats and other non-native species.
In this and many other cases, TWS and other professional societies need to do a better job of understanding the human dimensions of wildlife management, which means studying the underlying reasons why certain individuals or groups are likely to reject a scientific approach based on differing world views.

There are tools available to help. The Human-Wildlife Conflict Collaborative, for example, of which TWS is a partner, offers an excellent interactive workshop that helps wildlife professionals identify and react to deep-seated beliefs that can ultimately influence the success of management and conservation. The Society has also published a textbook on the human dimensions of wildlife management (Decker et al. 2001) that is used in college classes.
By understanding why people reject science, wildlife professionals will be better able to promote workable compromises to diffuse conflict and develop effective strategies to sustainably manage wildlife and conserve habitats. Ultimately, however, the bottom line for any strategy must be that it is proven to be truly effective in protecting native wildlife and their habitats.