Breaking out of the echo chamber: missed opportunities for genetics at conservation conferences


Genetic approaches have proven useful for addressing various conservation problems, but genetics remains poorly integrated into conservation practice. Multidisciplinary conservation conferences present excellent opportunities for bridging the conservation-genetics gap and facilitating cross-disciplinary projects. We hypothesize that there is a tendency for presentations featuring genetic approaches to be siloed into approach specific sessions, creating an “echo chamber”; geneticists are left talking amongst themselves, hindering collaboration across disciplines. To test this, we reviewed abstracts from the past six Society for Conservation Biology conferences and assessed how presentations featuring genetics/genomics were distributed throughout the respective programs. We found that: the segregation of presentations featuring genetics varied widely between conferences (22–78 %); that no other method or approach was segregated to the same degree; and that the vast majority (99 %) of presentations featuring genetics had broader applications that made them appropriate for other sessions. We argue that segregating genetics at conservation conferences in this way is unhelpful and serves to strengthen the idea that genetics is not relevant to a wider conservation audience. We recommend that; (1) conference organisers endeavour to facilitate the integration of genetics into sessions based on the conservation questions addressed, rather than the methods used to address them; and (2) geneticists make the practical application of their work clear at abstract submission and during presentations. These recommendations are not novel, but our data illustrate a clear need for them to be implemented to better facilitate integration of genetic research that will benefit conservation outcomes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2


  1. Allendorf FW, Hohenlohe PA, Luikart G (2010) Genomics and the future of conservation genetics. Nat Rev Genet 11:697–709. doi:10.1038/nrg2844

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Allendorf FW, Luikart G, Aitken SN (2013) Conservation and the Genetics of Populations, 2nd edn. Wiley, Chichester

    Google Scholar 

  3. Fallon SM (2007) Genetic data and the listing of species under the US Endangered Species Act. Conserv Biol 21:1186–1195. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2007.00775.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Frankham R (2010) Challenges and opportunities of genetic approaches to biological conservation. Biol Conserv 143:1919–1927. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2010.05.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Garner BA et al (2016) Genomics in conservation: case studies and bridging the gap between data and application. Trends Ecol Evol 31:81–83. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2015.10.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Haig SM, Miller MP, Bellinger R, Draheim HM, Mercer DM, Mullins TD (2016) The conservation genetics Juggling Act: integrating genetics and ecology, science and policy. Evol Appl 9:181–195. doi:10.1111/eva.12337

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. He X, Johansson ML, Heath DD (2016) Role of genomics and transcriptomics in selection of reintroduction source populations. Conserv Biol. doi:10.1111/cobi.12674

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Hoban SM et al (2013a) Conservation Genetic Resources for Effective Species Survival (ConGRESS): bridging the divide between conservation research and practice. J Nat Conserv 21:433–437. doi:10.1016/j.jnc.2013.07.005

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Hoban SM et al (2013b) Bringing genetic diversity to the forefront of conservation policy and management conservation genetics. Resources 5:593–598. doi:10.1007/s12686-013-9859-y

    Google Scholar 

  10. Kelly RP (2010) The use of population genetics in Endangered Species Act listing decisions. Ecol Law Quat 37:1107–1158

    Google Scholar 

  11. Laikre L (2010) Genetic diversity is overlooked in international conservation policy implementation. Conserv Genet 11:349–354. doi:10.1007/s10592-009-0037-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Liu J et al (2015) Systems integration for global sustainability. Science. doi:10.1126/science.1258832

    Google Scholar 

  13. Pierson JC et al (2015) Incorporating evolutionary processes into population viability models. Conserv Biol 29:755–764. doi:10.1111/cobi.12431

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Pierson JC (2016) Consideration of genetic factors in Threatened Species Recovery Plans on three continents. Front Ecol Environ (in press)

  15. Rodriguez-Clark KM et al (2015) Finding the “Conservation” in conservation genetics—progress in Latin America. J Hered 106:423–427. doi:10.1093/jhered/esv052

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sgrò CM, Lowe AJ, Hoffmann AA (2011) Building evolutionary resilience for conserving biodiversity under climate change. Evol Appl 4:326–337. doi:10.1111/j.1752-4571.2010.00157.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Shafer ABA et al (2015) Genomics and the challenging translation into conservation practice. Trends Ecol Evol 30:78–87. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2014.11.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Shafer ABA et al (2016) Genomics in conservation: case studies and bridging the gap between data and application reply. Trends Ecol Evol 31:83–84. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2015.11.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Society for conservation biology (2016) SCB conferences: international congress for conservation biology. Accessed 13 Jan 2016

  20. Taylor HR, Gemmell NJ et al (2016) Emerging technologies to conserve biodiversity: further opportunities via genomics. response to Pimm. Trends Ecol Evol 31:171–172. doi:10.1016/j.tree.2016.01.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Vernesi C, Bruford MW, Bertorelle G, Pecchioli E, Rizzoli A, Hauffe HC (2008) Where’s the conservation in conservation genetics? Conserv Biol 22:802–804. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.00911.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references


We thank Neil Gemmell and two anonymous reviewers for comments on previous versions of this manuscript.

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helen R. Taylor.

Additional information

Helen R. Taylor and Kylie Soanes are joint first authors.

Communicated by David Hawksworth.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Taylor, H.R., Soanes, K. Breaking out of the echo chamber: missed opportunities for genetics at conservation conferences. Biodivers Conserv 25, 1987–1993 (2016).

Download citation


  • Collaboration
  • Conservation
  • Genetics
  • Genomics
  • Integration