What happens when the research underpinning conservation is wrong?

A public campaign to cull 'invasive' cownose rays was hugely successful. But re-examining the data revealed a horrible truth: the rays weren't the problem

Effective conservation management is something that every biologist wants to see. This is especially true for shark biologists like me, because one in four cartilaginous species are currently estimated to be threatened with extinction (Dulvy et al 2014). But while it's easy to cheer conservation efforts, what happens when the research underpinning the strategy is wrong?

I've been thinking about this since listening to a talk by Dr Dean Grubbs at the European Elasmobranch Association Conference last year. Grubbs provided a timely reminder of the disastrous consequences that can happen when the research which informs and underpins the conservation strategies executed is not objective and, crucially, isn't subjected to rigorous peer review.