SHOULD scientists ever put a gloss on their data to bolster support for a “good cause”? Growing unhappiness about the Red List – the Oscars of extinction risk – underline why this is bad idea (see “Conservation’s ‘Red List’ is unscientific and often wrong”). Through the list, the International Union for Conservation of Nature has done an admirable job in alerting us to the threat of species loss, but in doing so it omitted to highlight the uncertainty in its findings. As a result, valuable resources may be going into saving the wrong species, and the list itself stands to lose…
To continue reading, today with our introductory offers
Advertisement
More from Â鶹´«Ã½
Explore the latest news, articles and features
Humans
Iron Age Britons may have removed the brains of the dead
News
Life
Frozen squirrel scat preserves ancient DNA from hundreds of species
News
Environment
The last-ditch plan to save coral reefs from utter destruction
Features
Earth
Dinosaur-killing asteroid impact site stayed hot for millions of years
News
Popular articles
Trending Â鶹´«Ã½ articles
1
Unpicking endometriosis reveals how it affects more than the pelvis
2
Why we should all take quantum physics extremely personally
3
The last-ditch plan to save coral reefs from utter destruction
4
Dinosaur-killing asteroid impact site stayed hot for millions of years
5
You don't need to worry about recursive-self-improving AI – yet
6
The Selfish Gene at 50: Why Dawkins’s evolution classic still holds up
7
What really happened when ancient humans migrated out of Africa
8
An unorthodox version of quantum theory could reveal what reality is
9
Escher: The paradoxical artist beloved by mathematicians
10
Embryos made without sperm or eggs reveal why many pregnancies fail