Applied Filters
- Science Applications Forum
- Cooke, Steven JRemove filter
Journal Title
Topics
Publication Date
Author
- Bennett, Joseph R1
- Boon, Sarah1
- Braun, Douglas C1
- Burnett, Nicholas J1
- Danylchuk, Andy J1
- Donaldson, Michael R1
- Doria, Maria1
- Foster, Sharla1
- Gallagher, Austin J1
- Gilmour, Sydney M1
- Hammerschlag, Neil1
- Hinch, Scott G1
- Kermany, Natalie1
- Kerr, Jeremy T1
- Nguyen, Vivian M1
- Proctor, Caitlyn A1
- Sebes, James1
- Skubel, Rachel A1
- Sopinka, Natalie M1
- Suski, Cory D1
- Turcotte, Audrey1
- Whitton, Jeannette1
- Young, Nathan1
Access Type
1 - 3of3
Save this search
Please login to be able to save your searches and receive alerts for new content matching your search criteria.
Filters
You do not have any saved searches
- OPEN ACCESS
- Michael R. Donaldson,
- Nicholas J. Burnett,
- Douglas C. Braun,
- Cory D. Suski,
- Scott G. Hinch,
- Steven J. Cooke, and
- Jeremy T. Kerr
While greater research on threatened species alone cannot ensure their protection, understanding taxonomic bias may be helpful to address knowledge gaps in order to identify research directions and inform policy. Using data for over 10 000 animal species listed on the International Union for Conservation of Nature Red List, we investigated taxonomic and geographic biodiversity conservation research trends worldwide. We found extreme bias in conservation research effort on threatened vertebrates compared with lesser-studied invertebrates in both terrestrial and aquatic habitats at a global scale. Based on an analysis of common threats affecting vertebrates and invertebrates, we suggest a path forward for narrowing the research gap between threatened vertebrates and invertebrates. - OPEN ACCESS
- Steven J. Cooke,
- Austin J. Gallagher,
- Natalie M. Sopinka,
- Vivian M. Nguyen,
- Rachel A. Skubel,
- Neil Hammerschlag,
- Sarah Boon,
- Nathan Young, and
- Andy J. Danylchuk
It is increasingly common for scientists to engage in sharing science-related knowledge with diverse knowledge users—an activity called science communication. Given that many scientists now seek information on how to communicate effectively, we have generated a list of 16 important considerations for those interested in science communication: (1) Define what science communication means to you and your research; (2) Know—and listen to—your target audience; (3) Consider a diverse but coordinated communication portfolio; (4) Draft skilled players and build a network; (5) Create and seize opportunities; (6) Be creative when you communicate; (7) Focus on the science in science communication; (8) Be an honest broker; (9) Understand the science of science communication; (10) Think like an entrepreneur; (11) Don’t let your colleagues stop you; (12) Integrate science communication into your research program; (13) Recognize how science communication enhances your science; (14) Request science communication funds from grants; (15) Strive for bidirectional communication; and (16) Evaluate, reflect, and be prepared to adapt. It is our ambition that the ideas shared here will encourage readers to engage in science communication and increase the effectiveness of those already active in science communication, stimulating them to share their experiences with others. - OPEN ACCESS
- Audrey Turcotte,
- Natalie Kermany,
- Sharla Foster,
- Caitlyn A. Proctor,
- Sydney M. Gilmour,
- Maria Doria,
- James Sebes,
- Jeannette Whitton,
- Steven J. Cooke, and
- Joseph R. Bennett
Since the implementation of the Canadian Species at Risk Act (SARA) in 2003, deficiencies in SARA and its application have become clear. Legislative and policy inconsistencies among responsible federal agencies and the use of a subjective approach for prioritizing species protection lead to taxonomic biases in protection. Variations in legislation among provinces/territories and the reluctance of the federal government to take actions make SARA’s application often inefficient on nonfederally managed lands. Ambiguous key terms (e.g., critical habitat) and disregard for legislated deadlines in many steps impede the efficacy of SARA. Additionally, the failure to fully recognize Indigenous knowledge and to seek Indigenous cooperation in the species protection process leads to weaker government accountability, promotes inequity, and leads to missed opportunities for partnerships. New legislative amendments with well-defined and standardized steps, including an automatic listing process, a systematic prioritization program, and clearer demands (e.g., mandatory threshold to trigger safety net/emergency order) would improve the success of species at risk protection. Moreover, a more inclusive approach that brings Indigenous representatives and independent scientists together is necessary for improving SARA’s effectiveness. These changes have the potential to transform SARA into a more powerful act towards protecting Canada’s at-risk wildlife. (The graphical abstract follows.)