A deeper look at this issue from political scientists, psychologists, and other disciplines supports the notion that trust in science is not actually the issue. It is not the methods or the messenger that elicits the objections. Most members of society trust science and scientists. However, when the origin of the science or the affiliation of the scientist appear agenda driven, trust rapidly erodes. Additionally, if science contains data or results that potentially conflict with an individual’s ideals and values, trust plummets. I think Bertrand Russell explained this best when he said, “If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.”

Given that the institutions who possess the jurisdictional authority for the conservation and management of wildlife are governmental, the public’s trust in its government is a critical factor in society’s acceptance of conservation-related science. In 2018, the America’s Wildlife Values Survey, explored the issue of the public’s trust in government and revealed some interesting patterns and relationships nationally. In summary, the public’s trust in all levels of government was declining but at different rates and to varying degrees geographically. Nationally, only about one quarter of the public trusted the federal government, just over a third of the public trusted state government, and the good news is, nearly 60% of the public had trust in their state wildlife agency. The level of trust in state wildlife agencies varied significantly across states and as one might expect, states with high levels of hunters and anglers typically enjoy greater trust in their state wildlife agency than their more urban counterparts.

As governmental agencies tasked with the management of trust species can attest, the trust of the public for whom you serve is essential for program and policy support as well as for funding. Whether the customers buying hunting and fishing licenses, or the constituents boating and birdwatching, trust in those tasked with the jurisdictional authority to care for wild things in wild places is imperative.

Given the necessity of the public’s trust in effectively conserving and managing the public’s resource combined with the decline in the public’s trust of government, how do government agencies proceed in a way that results in the reliance and adoption of agency-derived science to make decisions and develop program priorities?

In an increasingly polarized world filled with dilemmas framed in binary terms, the readily available information that inundates us daily perpetuates the validation of previously held beliefs, or confirmation biases. As the extremes dictate the terms of the debate, there is great temptation to argue. We too quickly resort to data-filled arguments to prove our points, establish our correctness, or demonstrate the faulty thinking of our adversaries. Too often, our data-filled efforts in argument are all for naught.

How then do we trained and experienced professionals, keepers of the data, productively engage with others in disagreement with us on conservation-related issues so near and dear to our hearts? By spending our time championing the good ideas rather than solely demonizing the bad ones. We must have the self-discipline to resist explaining why bad ideas are bad. We need to spend as little time as possible prosecuting the bad ideas and demonstrating that others are wrong and spend more time sharing the good ideas and elevating their value.

Additionally, we must engage with others who might not share our particular beliefs, values, or opinions. After all, it’s not the facts that change minds, it’s the friendships. We must be willing to give up being right for the sake of relationships. Rather than acting as the teacher, we need to be willing to listen and compromise. We need to find ways to make our science locally relevant and personally meaningful. And when we find ourselves at odds and contemplating our relationships with our adversaries, we need to remember the Abraham Lincoln quote, “I don’t like that man. I must get to know him better.” Because as author James Clear writes, “Perhaps it is not difference, but distance that breeds tribalism and hostility. As proximity increases, so does understanding.”