Invasion costs, impacts, and human agency: response to Sagoff 2020

0540659 - BÚ 2021 RIV US eng J - Journal Article
Cuthbert, R. N. - Bacher, S. - Blackburn, T. M. - Briski, E. - Diagne, C. - Dick, J. T. A. - Essl, F. - Genovesi, P. - Haubrock, P. J. - Latombe, G. - Lenzner, B. - Meinard, Y. - Pauchard, A. - Pyšek, Petr - Ricciardi, A. - Richardson, D. M. - Russell, J. C. - Simberloff, D. - Courchamp, F.
Invasion costs, impacts, and human agency: response to Sagoff 2020.
Conservation Biology. Roč. 34, č. 6 (2020), s. 1579-1582. ISSN 0888-8892. E-ISSN 1523-1739
R&D Projects: GA ČR(CZ) GX19-28807X
Institutional support: RVO:67985939
Keywords : biological invasions * denialism * response
OECD category: Ecology
Impact factor: 6.560, year: 2020
Method of publishing: Open access
https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13592

The increasing relevance of invasion science in an era of profound biodiversity loss has been accompanied by an increase in denialism that exploits uncertainty, ignores or misrepresents empirical evidence, alleges bias, and casts doubt on consensus. Evidence-based scientific debate (i.e., informed skepticism) indicates a healthy discipline, however, repeating unsupported claims and disregarding decades of evidence negates knowledge progression, adversely affects public attitudes, and misleads policy makers. Sagoff (2020) ignores a large empirical evidence base and dismisses consensus among invasion scientists by questioning: the credibility of high economic costs of invasive species, threats posed by invasive species other than predators, generality of native and nonnative distinctions, and, the utility of ontological dualism in distinguishing natural and anthropogenic processes.
Permanent Link: http://hdl.handle.net/11104/0318310