ECOLOGY Kareiva vs. Soule How two men have caused a deep divide in the field of ecology. ‘BY HANNAH BOHNAKER, steemed environmental scientists Peter Kareiva and Michael Soulé have caused quite a stir in the scientific community recently. The issue at hand? Conservation science, how it should be handled in the ever-changing modern world, and what core values and ideas its very foundation lies on. Soulé orignially pioneered the idea of conservation science in 1983 with his groundbreaking article, “What is Conservation Biology,” earning him the acial title of “the Father of |W. Conservation Science.” states that the field is a “crisis discipline,” and that if we do Kareiva (left) and Souté (right), not preserve biodiversity, even fer the smallest of or; entire ecosystems could suffer. The way most ecologists have me about preserving this bio- versity is through petitioning for land to be set aside as national parks and nature conservancies where both the largest predators and the small- est’ microorganisms can_ live without human _ interference. The idea is that ethical reason- ing should be enough to keep humans out of nature, and allow debated this issue at the 2014 Conference of the Western Society of Naturalists in Tacoma, WA ms, | source of food, often resulting in i E it to remain pristine and, untouched (Soulé, 1985). Of course, not’ everyone ‘agrees with this model. ‘When Soulé| wrote his paper in 1985, the| world population sat at about| 4.8 billion. In 2015, we're up to| about 7.5 billion (UN, Dept. off Economic and Social Affairs, 2015), The world is growing] rapidly, and all those extra| humans need places to go and| resources to use. This is high-| lighted in developing countries| such as Kenya and’ Tanzania, here governments set aside| protected land at the expense off the people who have been living| there for years. Countless indig-| eygie iiber liave heen daplared both from their homes and their| a decline in protected species| due to retaliation killing and| illegal hunting. To quote Mark Dowie, “national parks and pro-| tected’ areas surrounded by angry, hungry people... are geri- erally’ dooméd to fail (Dowie, 2009). Enter Peter Rareiva, cheif scientist at The Nature] Conservancy, who has been| @\ “crisis discipline” and lauding co-authored the paper “What is Conservation Science” in | 2012, refuting the idea of the pthe idea of realistic, Bl evidence-based science tha focuses on both the needs be of the environment and chose of the people who| five in it. He cites recent ‘studies that report that it takes between 10-50 years for ecosystems to recover com- pletely from disturbances, much ess then most scientists have predicted (Jones 2009), and he strongly suggests that conser- vationists work with busi es rather than against. The Nature| Conservancy” has partnered with several corporations, and the results have shown definite improvement in efforts for cleaner air and water at work sites (Dow Chemical, 2015). Short answer: neither. This is an issue far too complex to split into just two sides. In reality, thé solution is likely a combination of both tradi- tional methods like Soulé favors and newer ideals like Kareiva’s. As prominent scientific journal Nature ha pointed out, “vitriolic, per- sonal battles” are only’ stall- ing progress, and the field can go nowhere unless it becomes more inclusive of scientists with different values and gpinions (Tallis, 2014). ‘The focus should be on gatherin, and expanding evidence an knowledge, and listening. to the many ‘diverse voices of researchers in the field rather than the few who are cur- rently speaking the loudest. REFERENCES st RE REREN CES on tl? Bh.orsh ey oe ‘he eee be ae Tbe DUN a EE eer Cah ag gern Feet mnt Oy & true G05), ag Karena, making waves in the Environ: mental Science community. He! and professor Michelle Marvier MODERN SCIENCE WEERIY, APRIL 2015 Sie raptors hs OR Tepe St aca Coe ap CES LO Soden cays ac 38