Professional obligations in the conservation of fishes

Abstract

Species and habitat endangerment have reached a point where complacency toward conservation efforts is unacceptable. Powerful political forces oppose conservation of biodiversity, requiring a more coordinated effort to protect increasingly endangered biota. This calls for enhanced communication as conservation biologists in government agencies grasp for information that can best be produced by the university scientist. Ethics and reality now demand that scholarship of application be given at least equal consideration with scholarship of discovery. The same intense interest that inspires research carries with it a strong, implied obligation to pass on to future generations a biota undiminished from the one we inherited. Yet academe is fraught with researchers who, seemingly oblivious to deteriorating ecosystems and motivated to meet advancement requirements, often lose sight of a deeper, less egocentric direction. Advocacy in any form, they fear, may serve to compromise both objectivity and reputation, a situation often overlooked by critics within government who remain unaware of traditions and intransigence within the academy. Undergraduate curricula, and faculty selection and advancement criteria need to be restructured as a means of reaching an acceptable middle ground. Otherwise, we may soon find ourselves in the untenable position of having made major contributions to the literature of a rapidly disappearing biota that might have been saved by utilizing less flawed protocols and attitudes. A broadening of philosophies, goals, and values is mandatory, lest we lose sight of our mutual responsibility: the long-term integrity and welfare of the marvelous biological resource that comprises our stewardship and continues to evade our absolute comprehension.