The difficulties of systematic reviews

The need for robust evidence to support conservation actions has driven the adoption of systematic approaches to research synthesis in ecology. However, applying systematic review to complex or open questions remains challenging, and this task is becoming more difficult as the quantity of scientific literature increases. We drew on the science of linguistics for guidance as to why the process of identifying and sorting information during systematic review remains so labor intensive, and to provide potential solutions. Several linguistic properties of peer‐reviewed corpora—including nonrandom selection of review topics, small‐world properties of semantic networks, and spatiotemporal variation in word meaning—greatly increase the effort needed to complete the systematic review process. Conversely, the resolution of these semantic complexities is a common motivation for narrative reviews, but this process is rarely enacted with the rigor applied during linguistic analysis. Therefore, linguistics provides a unifying framework for understanding some key challenges of systematic review and highlights 2 useful directions for future research. First, in cases where semantic complexity generates barriers to synthesis, ecologists should consider drawing on existing methods—such as natural language processing or the construction of research thesauri and ontologies—that provide tools for mapping and resolving that complexity. These tools could help individual researchers classify research material in a more robust manner and provide valuable guidance for future researchers on that topic. Second, a linguistic perspective highlights that scientific writing is a rich resource worthy of detailed study, an observation that can sometimes be lost during the search for data during systematic review or meta‐analysis. For example, mapping semantic networks can reveal redundancy and complementarity among scientific concepts, leading to new insights and research questions. Consequently, wider adoption of linguistic approaches may facilitate improved rigor and richness in research synthesis.     

Exposing ecological and economic costs of the research‐implementation gap and compromises in decision making

The frequently discussed gap between conservation science and practice is manifest in the gap between spatial conservation prioritization plans and their implementation. We analyzed the research‐implementation gap of one zoning case by comparing results of a spatial prioritization analysis aimed at avoiding ecological impact of peat mining in a regional zoning process with the final zoning plan. We examined the relatively complex planning process to determine the gaps among research, zoning, and decision making. We quantified the ecological costs of the differing trade‐offs between ecological and socioeconomic factors included in the different zoning suggestions by comparing the landscape‐level loss of ecological features (species occurrences, habitat area, etc.) between the different solutions for spatial allocation of peat mining. We also discussed with the scientists and planners the reasons for differing zoning suggestions. The implemented plan differed from the scientists suggestion in that its focus was individual ecological features rather than all the ecological features for which there were data; planners and decision makers considered effects of peat mining on areas not included in the prioritization analysis; zoning was not truly seen as a resource‐allocation process and not emphasized in general minimizing ecological losses while satisfying economic needs (peat‐mining potential); and decision makers based their prioritization of sites on site‐level information showing high ecological value and on single legislative factors instead of finding a cost‐effective landscape‐level solution. We believe that if the zoning and decision‐making processes are very complex, then the usefulness of science‐based prioritization tools is likely to be reduced. Nevertheless, we found that high‐end tools were useful in clearly exposing trade‐offs between conservation and resource utilization.     

Identifying taxonomic and functional surrogates for spring biodiversity conservation

Surrogate approaches are widely used to estimate overall taxonomic diversity for conservation planning. Surrogate taxa are frequently selected based on rarity or charisma, whereas selection through statistical modeling has been applied rarely. We used boosted‐regression‐tree models (BRT) fitted to biological data from 165 springs to identify bryophyte and invertebrate surrogates for taxonomic and functional diversity of boreal springs. We focused on these 2 groups because they are well known and abundant in most boreal springs. The best indicators of taxonomic versus functional diversity differed. The bryophyte Bryum weigelii and the chironomid larva Paratrichocladius skirwithensis best indicated taxonomic diversity, whereas the isopod Asellus aquaticus and the chironomid Macropelopia spp. were the best surrogates of functional diversity. In a scoring algorithm for priority‐site selection, taxonomic surrogates performed only slightly better than random selection for all spring‐dwelling taxa, but they were very effective in representing spring specialists, providing a distinct improvement over random solutions. However, the surrogates for taxonomic diversity represented functional diversity poorly and vice versa. When combined with cross‐taxon complementarity analyses, surrogate selection based on statistical modeling provides a promising approach for identifying groundwater‐dependent ecosystems of special conservation value, a key requirement of the EU Water Framework Directive.     

Scientists as Stakeholders in Conservation of Hydrothermal Vents

Abstract: Hydrothermal vents are deep‐sea ecosystems that are almost exclusively known and explored by scientists rather than the general public. Continuing scientific discoveries arising from study of hydrothermal vents are concommitant with the increased number of scientific cruises visiting and sampling vent ecosystems. Through a bibliometric analysis, we assessed the scientific value of hydrothermal vents relative to two of the most well‐studied marine ecosystems, coral reefs and seagrass beds. Scientific literature on hydrothermal vents is abundant, of high impact, international, and interdisciplinary and is comparable in these regards with literature on coral reefs and seagrass beds. Scientists may affect hydrothermal vents because their activities are intense and spatially and temporally concentrated in these small systems. The potential for undesirable effects from scientific enterprise motivated the creation of a code of conduct for environmentally and scientifically benign use of hydrothermal vents for research. We surveyed scientists worldwide engaged in deep‐sea research and found that scientists were aware of the code of conduct and thought it was relevant to conservation, but they did not feel informed or confident about the respect other researchers have for the code. Although this code may serve as a reminder of scientists’ environmental responsibilities, conservation of particular vents (e.g., closures to human activity, specific human management) may effectively ensure sustainable use of vent ecosystems for all stakeholders.     

Defining the Impact of Non‐Native Species

Non‐native species cause changes in the ecosystems to which they are introduced. These changes, or some of them, are usually termed impacts; they can be manifold and potentially damaging to ecosystems and biodiversity. However, the impacts of most non‐native species are poorly understood, and a synthesis of available information is being hindered because authors often do not clearly define impact. We argue that explicitly defining the impact of non‐native species will promote progress toward a better understanding of the implications of changes to biodiversity and ecosystems caused by non‐native species; help disentangle which aspects of scientific debates about non‐native species are due to disparate definitions and which represent true scientific discord; and improve communication between scientists from different research disciplines and between scientists, managers, and policy makers. For these reasons and based on examples from the literature, we devised seven key questions that fall into 4 categories: directionality, classification and measurement, ecological or socio‐economic changes, and scale. These questions should help in formulating clear and practical definitions of impact to suit specific scientific, stakeholder, or legislative contexts. Definiendo el Impacto de las Especies No‐Nativas     

An Empirical Assessment of the Focal Species Hypothesis

Biodiversity surrogates and indicators are commonly used in conservation management. The focal species approach (FSA) is one method for identifying biodiversity surrogates, and it is underpinned by the hypothesis that management aimed at a particular focal species will confer protection on co‐occurring species. This concept has been the subject of much debate, in part because the validity of the FSA has not been subject to detailed empirical assessment of the extent to which a given focal species actually co‐occurs with other species in an assemblage. To address this knowledge gap, we used large‐scale, long‐term data sets of temperate woodland birds to select focal species associated with threatening processes such as habitat isolation and loss of key vegetation attributes. We quantified co‐occurrence patterns among focal species, species in the wider bird assemblage, and species of conservation concern. Some, but not all, focal species were associated with high levels of species richness. One of our selected focal species was negatively associated with the occurrence of other species (i.e., it was an antisurrogate)—a previously undescribed property of nominated focal species. Furthermore, combinations of focal species were not associated with substantially elevated levels of bird species richness, relative to levels associated with individual species. Our results suggest that although there is some merit to the underpinning concept of the FSA, there is also a need to ensure that actions are sufficiently flexible because management tightly focused on a given focal species may not benefit some other species, including species of conservation concern, such of which might not occur in species‐rich assemblages. Una Evaluación Empírica de la Hipótesis de Especie Focal     

Effects of cost metric on cost‐effectiveness of protected‐area network design in urban landscapes

A common goal in conservation planning is to acquire areas that are critical to realizing biodiversity goals in the most cost‐effective manner. The way monetary acquisition costs are represented in such planning is an understudied but vital component to realizing cost efficiencies. We sought to design a protected‐area network within a forested urban region that would protect 17 birds of conservation concern. We compared the total costs and spatial structure of the optimal protected‐area networks produced using three acquisition‐cost surrogates (area, agricultural land value, and tax‐assessed land value). Using the tax‐assessed land values there was a 73% and 78% cost savings relative to networks derived using area or agricultural land value, respectively. This cost reduction was due to the considerable heterogeneity in acquisition costs revealed in tax‐assessed land values, especially for small land parcels, and the corresponding ability of the optimization algorithm to identify lower‐cost parcels for inclusion that had equal value to our target species. Tax‐assessed land values also reflected the strong spatial differences in acquisition costs (US$0.33/m²–$55/m²) and thus allowed the algorithm to avoid inclusion of high‐cost parcels when possible. Our results add to a nascent but growing literature that suggests conservation planners must consider the cost surrogate they use when designing protected‐area networks. We suggest that choosing cost surrogates that capture spatial‐ and size‐dependent heterogeneity in acquisition costs may be relevant to establishing protected areas in urbanizing ecosystems.     

Towards improved socio-economic assessments of ocean acidification’s impacts

Ocean acidification is increasingly recognized as a component of global change that could have a wide range of impacts on marine organisms, the ecosystems they live in, and the goods and services they provide humankind. Assessment of these potential socio-economic impacts requires integrated efforts between biologists, chemists, oceanographers, economists and social scientists. But because ocean acidification is a new research area, significant knowledge gaps are preventing economists from estimating its welfare impacts. For instance, economic data on the impact of ocean acidification on significant markets such as fisheries, aquaculture and tourism are very limited (if not non-existent), and non-market valuation studies on this topic are not yet available. Our paper summarizes the current understanding of future OA impacts and sets out what further information is required for economists to assess socio-economic impacts of ocean acidification. Our aim is to provide clear directions for multidisciplinary collaborative research.     

Aligning science and policy to achieve evolutionarily enlightened conservation

There is increasing recognition among conservation scientists that long‐term conservation outcomes could be improved through better integration of evolutionary theory into management practices. Despite concerns that the importance of key concepts emerging from evolutionary theory (i.e., evolutionary principles and processes) are not being recognized by managers, there has been little effort to determine the level of integration of evolutionary theory into conservation policy and practice. We assessed conservation policy at 3 scales (international, national, and provincial) on 3 continents to quantify the degree to which key evolutionary concepts, such as genetic diversity and gene flow, are being incorporated into conservation practice. We also evaluated the availability of clear guidance within the applied evolutionary biology literature as to how managers can change their management practices to achieve better conservation outcomes. Despite widespread recognition of the importance of maintaining genetic diversity, conservation policies provide little guidance about how this can be achieved in practice and other relevant evolutionary concepts, such as inbreeding depression, are mentioned rarely. In some cases the poor integration of evolutionary concepts into management reflects a lack of decision‐support tools in the literature. Where these tools are available, such as risk‐assessment frameworks, they are not being adopted by conservation policy makers, suggesting that the availability of a strong evidence base is not the only barrier to evolutionarily enlightened management. We believe there is a clear need for more engagement by evolutionary biologists with policy makers to develop practical guidelines that will help managers make changes to conservation practice. There is also an urgent need for more research to better understand the barriers to and opportunities for incorporating evolutionary theory into conservation practice.     

Incorporating Climate Science in Applications of the U.S. Endangered Species Act for Aquatic Species

Aquatic species are threatened by climate change but have received comparatively less attention than terrestrial species. We gleaned key strategies for scientists and managers seeking to address climate change in aquatic conservation planning from the literature and existing knowledge. We address 3 categories of conservation effort that rely on scientific analysis and have particular application under the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA): assessment of overall risk to a species; long‐term recovery planning; and evaluation of effects of specific actions or perturbations. Fewer data are available for aquatic species to support these analyses, and climate effects on aquatic systems are poorly characterized. Thus, we recommend scientists conducting analyses supporting ESA decisions develop a conceptual model that links climate, habitat, ecosystem, and species response to changing conditions and use this model to organize analyses and future research. We recommend that current climate conditions are not appropriate for projections used in ESA analyses and that long‐term projections of climate‐change effects provide temporal context as a species‐wide assessment provides spatial context. In these projections, climate change should not be discounted solely because the magnitude of projected change at a particular time is uncertain when directionality of climate change is clear. Identifying likely future habitat at the species scale will indicate key refuges and potential range shifts. However, the risks and benefits associated with errors in modeling future habitat are not equivalent. The ESA offers mechanisms for increasing the overall resilience and resistance of species to climate changes, including establishing recovery goals requiring increased genetic and phenotypic diversity, specifying critical habitat in areas not currently occupied but likely to become important, and using adaptive management. Incorporación de las Ciencias Climáticas en las Aplicaciones del Acta Estadunidense de Especies en Peligro para Especies Acuáticas     

Science or Slaughter: Need for Lethal Sampling of Sharks

Abstract: General consensus among scientists, commercial interests, and the public regarding the status of shark populations is leading to an increasing need for the scientific community to provide information to help guide effective management and conservation actions. Experience from other marine vertebrate taxa suggests that public, political, and media pressures will play an increasingly important part in setting research, management, and conservation priorities. We examined the potential implications of nonscientific influences on shark research. In particular, we considered whether lethal research sampling of sharks is justified. Although lethal sampling comes at a cost to a population, especially for threatened species, the conservation benefits from well‐designed studies provide essential data that cannot be collected currently in any other way. Methods that enable nonlethal collection of life‐history data on sharks are being developed (e.g., use of blood samples to detect maturity), but in the near future they will not provide widespread or significant benefits. Development of these techniques needs to continue, as does the way in which scientists coordinate their use of material collected during lethal sampling. For almost half of the known shark species there are insufficient data to determine their population status; thus, there is an ongoing need for further collection of scientific data to ensure all shark populations have a future. Shark populations will benefit most when decisions about the use of lethal sampling are made on the basis of scientific evidence that is free from individual, political, public, and media pressures.     

Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews

Review articles can provide valuable summaries of the ever‐increasing volume of primary research in conservation biology. Where findings may influence important resource‐allocation decisions in policy or practice, there is a need for a high degree of reliability when reviewing evidence. However, traditional literature reviews are susceptible to a number of biases during the identification, selection, and synthesis of included studies (e.g., publication bias, selection bias, and vote counting). Systematic reviews, pioneered in medicine and translated into conservation in 2006, address these issues through a strict methodology that aims to maximize transparency, objectivity, and repeatability. Systematic reviews will always be the gold standard for reliable synthesis of evidence. However, traditional literature reviews remain popular and will continue to be valuable where systematic reviews are not feasible. Where traditional reviews are used, lessons can be taken from systematic reviews and applied to traditional reviews in order to increase their reliability. Certain key aspects of systematic review methods that can be used in a context‐specific manner in traditional reviews include focusing on mitigating bias; increasing transparency, consistency, and objectivity, and critically appraising the evidence and avoiding vote counting. In situations where conducting a full systematic review is not feasible, the proposed approach to reviewing evidence in a more systematic way can substantially improve the reliability of review findings, providing a time‐ and resource‐efficient means of maximizing the value of traditional reviews. These methods are aimed particularly at those conducting literature reviews where systematic review is not feasible, for example, for graduate students, single reviewers, or small organizations.     

A Critical Assessment of the Use of Surrogate Species in Conservation Planning in the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta,California (U.S.A.)

Abstract: Conservation biology has provided wildlife managers with a wealth of concepts and tools for use in conservation planning; among them is the surrogate species concept. Over the past 20 years, a growing body of empirical literature has demonstrated the limited effectiveness of surrogates as management tools, unless it is first established that the target species and surrogate will respond similarly to a given set of environmental conditions. Wildlife managers and policy makers have adopted the surrogate species concept, reflecting the limited information available on most species at risk of extirpation or extinction and constraints on resources available to support conservation efforts. We examined the use of surrogate species, in the form of cross‐taxon response‐indicator species (that is, one species from which data are used to guide management planning for another, distinct species) in the Sacramento‐San Joaquin Delta, California (U.S.A.). In that system there has been increasing reliance on surrogates in conservation planning for species listed under federal or state endangered species acts, although the agencies applying the surrogate species concept did not first validate that the surrogate and target species respond similarly to relevant environmental conditions. During the same period, conservation biologists demonstrated that the surrogate concept is generally unsupported by ecological theory and empirical evidence. Recently developed validation procedures may allow for the productive use of surrogates in conservation planning, but, used without validation, the surrogate species concept is not a reliable planning tool.     

Research priorities for conservation and natural resource management in Oceania's small‐island developing states

For conservation science to effectively inform management, research must focus on creating the scientific knowledge required to solve conservation problems. We identified research questions that, if answered, would increase the effectiveness of conservation and natural resource management practice and policy in Oceania's small‐island developing states. We asked conservation professionals from academia, governmental, and nongovernmental organizations across the region to propose such questions and then identify which were of high priority in an online survey. We compared the high‐priority questions with research questions identified globally and for other regions. Of 270 questions proposed by respondents, 38 were considered high priority, including: What are the highest priority areas for conservation in the face of increasing resource demand and climate change? How should marine protected areas be networked to account for connectivity and climate change? What are the most effective fisheries management policies that contribute to sustainable coral reef fisheries? High‐priority questions related to the particular challenges of undertaking conservation on small‐island developing states and the need for a research agenda that is responsive to the sociocultural context of Oceania. Research priorities for Oceania relative to elsewhere were broadly similar but differed in specific issues relevant to particular conservation contexts. These differences emphasize the importance of involving local practitioners in the identification of research priorities. Priorities were reasonably well aligned among sectoral groups. Only a few questions were widely considered answered, which may indicate a smaller‐than‐expected knowledge‐action gap. We believe these questions can be used to strengthen research collaborations between scientists and practitioners working to further conservation and natural resource management in this region.     

Developing an interdisciplinary and cross‐sectoral community of practice in the domain of forests and livelihoods

Although significant resources are being spent researching and fostering the relationship between forests and livelihoods to promote mutually beneficial outcomes, critical gaps in understanding persist. A core reason for such gaps is that researchers, practitioners, and policy makers lack the structured space to interact and collaborate, which is essential for effective, interdisciplinary research, practice, and evaluation. Thus, scientific findings, policy recommendations, and measured outcomes have not always been synthesized into deep, systemic understanding; learning from practice and implementation does not easily find its way into scientific analyses, and science often fails to influence policy. Communities of practice (CofPs) are dynamic sociocultural systems that bring people together to share and create knowledge around a common topic of interest. They offer participants a space and structure within which to develop new, systemic approaches to multidimensional problems on a common theme. Uniquely informed by a systems‐thinking perspective and drawing from the scientific and gray literatures and in‐depth interviews with representatives of established CofPs in the natural resource management and development domain, we argue that a well‐designed and adequately funded CofP can facilitate interdisciplinary and cross‐sectoral relationships and knowledge exchange. Well‐designed CofPs integrate a set of core features and processes to enhance individual, collective, and domain outcomes; they set out an initial but evolving purpose, encourage diverse leadership, and promote collective‐identity development. Funding facilitates effective communication strategies (e.g., in person meetings). We urge our colleagues across sectors and disciplines to take advantage of CofPs to advance the domain of forests and livelihoods.     

Publishing science without results and recycling research

Most scientists focus too much on publishing original articles. In doing so, scientists are restricting their writing skills to this form of highly specialised publication, which is poorly readable by scientists from other disciplines. In the context of rising interdisciplinary research and data abundance, there is a need for more publications that recycle existing research and communicate to a wider audience. Therefore, I present here five types of publications that do not require additional experiments, namely reviews, methods, data papers, meta-analyses and videos. Benefits include more citations, larger visibility, wider dissemination, easier job finding, grant success and better recycling of research.     

Environmental diversity as a surrogate for species representation

Because many species have not been described and most species ranges have not been mapped, conservation planners often use surrogates for conservation planning, but evidence for surrogate effectiveness is weak. Surrogates are well‐mapped features such as soil types, landforms, occurrences of an easily observed taxon (discrete surrogates), and well‐mapped environmental conditions (continuous surrogate). In the context of reserve selection, the idea is that a set of sites selected to span diversity in the surrogate will efficiently represent most species. Environmental diversity (ED) is a rarely used surrogate that selects sites to efficiently span multivariate ordination space. Because it selects across continuous environmental space, ED should perform better than discrete surrogates (which necessarily ignore within‐bin and between‐bin heterogeneity). Despite this theoretical advantage, ED appears to have performed poorly in previous tests of its ability to identify 50 × 50 km cells that represented vertebrates in Western Europe. Using an improved implementation of ED, we retested ED on Western European birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and combined terrestrial vertebrates. We also tested ED on data sets for plants of Zimbabwe, birds of Spain, and birds of Arizona (United States). Sites selected using ED represented European mammals no better than randomly selected cells, but they represented species in the other 7 data sets with 20% to 84% effectiveness. This far exceeds the performance in previous tests of ED, and exceeds the performance of most discrete surrogates. We believe ED performed poorly in previous tests because those tests considered only a few candidate explanatory variables and used suboptimal forms of ED's selection algorithm. We suggest future work on ED focus on analyses at finer grain sizes more relevant to conservation decisions, explore the effect of selecting the explanatory variables most associated with species turnover, and investigate whether nonclimate abiotic variables can provide useful surrogates in an ED framework.     

The data not collected on community forestry

Conservation and development practitioners increasingly promote community forestry as a way to conserve ecosystem services, consolidate resource rights, and reduce poverty. However, outcomes of community forestry have been mixed; many initiatives failed to achieve intended objectives. There is a rich literature on institutional arrangements of community forestry, but there has been little effort to examine the role of socioeconomic, market, and biophysical factors in shaping both land‐cover change dynamics and individual and collective livelihood outcomes. We systematically reviewed the peer‐reviewed literature on community forestry to examine and quantify existing knowledge gaps in the community‐forestry literature relative to these factors. In examining 697 cases of community forest management (CFM), extracted from 267 peer‐reviewed publications, we found 3 key trends that limit understanding of community forestry. First, we found substantial data gaps linking population dynamics, market forces, and biophysical characteristics to both environmental and livelihood outcomes. Second, most studies focused on environmental outcomes, and the majority of studies that assessed socioeconomic outcomes relied on qualitative data, making comparisons across cases difficult. Finally, there was a heavy bias toward studies on South Asian forests, indicating that the literature on community forestry may not be representative of decentralization policies and CFM globally.     

Enhancing the Engagement of U.S. Private Foundations with Conservation Science

Abstract: Funding for conservation is limited, and its investment for maximum conservation gain can likely be enhanced through the application of relevant science. Many donor institutions support and use science to pursue conservation goals, but their activities remain relatively unfamiliar to the conservation‐science community. We examined the priorities and practices of U.S.‐based private foundations that support biodiversity conservation. We surveyed 50 donor members of the Consultative Group on Biological Diversity (CGBD) to address three questions: (1) What support do CGBD members provide for conservation science? (2) How do CGBD members use conservation science in their grant making and strategic thinking? (3) How do CGBD members obtain information about conservation science? The 38 donor institutions that responded to the survey made $340 million in grants for conservation in 2005, including $62 million for conservation science. Individual foundations varied substantially in the proportion of conservation funds allocated to science. Foundations also varied in the ways and degree to which they used conservation science to guide their grant making. Respondents found it “somewhat difficult” to stay informed about conservation science relevant to their work, reporting that they accessed conservation science information mainly through their grantees. Many funders reported concerns about the strategic utility of funding conservation science to achieve conservation gains. To increase investment by private foundations in conservation science, funders, researchers, and conservation practitioners need to jointly identify when and how new scientific knowledge will lower barriers to conservation gains. We envision an evolving relationship between funders and conservation scientists that emphasizes primary research and synthesis motivated by (1) applicability, (2) human‐ecosystem interactions, (3) active engagement among scientists and decision makers, and (4) broader communication of relevant scientific information.     

On Advocacy by Environmental Scientists: What, Whether, Why, and How

Abstract:  Debate about the nature and appropriateness of advocacy by environmental scientists is important—it represents understanding the role of these citizens in our society. Much has been written about advocacy by scientists, and that literature describes substantial diversity in reasons why advocacy by scientists is or is not appropriate. Despite the nature of this literature there has been no comprehensive, systematic review of why some favor and others oppose advocacy by environmental scientists. Through a literature review we catalogued, categorized, and critiqued the arguments used for and against the appropriateness of advocacy by environmental scientists. Most arguments, whether for or against advocacy, are characterized by some significant deficiency. From our analysis of the literature an argument emerges that to date has never been fully articulated: that advocacy is nearly unavoidable, and that scientists, by virtue of being citizens first and scientists second, have a responsibility to advocate to the best of their abilities, to improve their advocacy abilities, and to advocate in a justified and transparent manner. We also discuss the meaning and relevance of advocacy being justified and transparent. We suggest scientists expend their efforts to better understand what constitutes appropriate advocacy and spend less effort pondering whether they should advocate .