Has @sciencemagazine been spoofed with a piece of satire? It has just published a letter about conservation ethics which is so bad that the most reasonable explanation for it is that it is a cunning fake. See bit.ly/2BScAKX 1/12 
The letter advocates militarised conservation because it is so good for conservation. I disagree, but recognise that reasonable people can argue thus. However the quality of the writing, scholarship and other claims in this letter mean it cannot be taken seriously. 2/12
The letter ignores scholarship on displacement, community conservation and the effectiveness, and injustices, of violent conservation. It draws on weak sources, uses them selectively, and brings in irrelevant facts. It takes debates back 20 years bit.ly/2PwAeVE 3/12
It makes extraordinary claims about social science. Social science is never the objective study of social systems. The very things we chose to study (race, gender, class, money) are determined by theories underpinned by values about what should be important. 4/12
Injustice is fundamental to social science – and it underpins conservation. Conservation is a crisis discipline. It is driven by a deep sense of wrong – and fear - about unwelcome change. Conservation science serves conservationists’ values. See bit.ly/2BWCOw2 5/12
The letter’s treatment of ethics is nonsensical. One sentence recognises ‘some people find this [ie violent conservation] unethical’. The next decries a selective approach to ethical concerns. But this is precisely the approach of that prior sentence. 6/12
I think the authors know all this. Their work explores co-existence, not separation in fortresses. Their work on rights of Nature is scholarly. Chapron’s website states that conservation is a moral, normative discipline - and that he uses satire. See bit.ly/2Nn1seI 7/12
This letter is primarily a criticism of radical consequentialism and attempts to escape ethical considerations in conservation. The authors know this is impossible. It works as satire because it shows where a morally careless pursuit of evidence can lead. 8/12
But if it is satire then is not good satire. Satire makes you laugh; readers empathise with the satirist. This letter prompts confusion and dismay (see bit.ly/2r0eZRX and bit.ly/36hubKp). It is more likely to be taken seriously than it will raise a smile. 9/12
And whether satire or not, how did these claims about natural and social science, this flawed scholarship, irrelevant fact and contradiction survive @sciencemagazine editorial review? Does this demonstrate leadership in conservation – or foolishness? 10/12
Lest it be taken seriously, readers should know that conservation faces moral challenges for which that letter cannot be a guide. Using, or avoiding, violent conservation raises serious ethical questions. See go.nature.com/31Zmyoz 11/12
If we think conservation science provides an objective guide to conservation’s moral choices we deceive ourselves. If conservation debate and practice are to progress we cannot be as clueless about science, natural or social, as @sciencemagazine 12/12
