Rejoinder to "Discernment and Precaution: A Response to Cochrane and Mech"

摘要: The 2012 article by Vucetich et al. in George Wright Forum, which launched the discussion this journal about future of wolves Isle Royale National Park, declares that an “appropriate approach is to acknowledge and understand all values at stake then develop a perspective or position would least infringe upon set values.” Earlier they warn common mistake “having dismissive attitude others’ [ethics]...” (Vucetich 2012: 127). And yet, their response my contribution (Cochrane 2013), are dismissive, asserting I “celebrate extinction moose from Royale,” am “perverse” (supposedly) opt for extinction, “misanthropic” 2013: 333, 334). routinely mischaracterize perspective, often extrapolating questions into did not state, nor have. Clearly exercise “understanding To paraphrase Shakespeare, perhaps doth protest too much. In public debate what should be done much has been said contemplated. single most important point yet included consideration substantial vested interests principal authors institutions involved. This surprising lacuna, especially since two environmental ethicists. Vested interest science necessarily bad. However, when scientists choose also adopt advocacy role, as have, question becomes how such handled whether rise level bias within role. Two have profound professional (career advancement, reputation, meeting large research funding expectations) align with professed stance genetic rescue continuation long-term wolf–moose study. Genetic generate further interest, expanded opportunities, even personal reward living part year national park. employed Michigan Technological University, “celebrates” study press releases websites, making symbol university. park Park Service extolling animals involved decades, generating another interest. While sug-