The cost of casting animals as heroes and villains in conservation science

"Scientists are philosophers, explorers, data collectors and number crunchers. They are also storytellers, placing data within a broader scientific and societal context. How they tell these stories matters. In our work as ecologists, we find that the "hero-villain" narrative trope is a popular tool in ecology and conservation writing."

"First, by definition, a villain is not only doing bad but is morally bad. As a result, villains are judged and held accountable for their deeds. But plants, animals and ecosystems are not morally responsible for their actions because they do not operate within human-constructed moral frameworks. The hero-villain trope therefore invites an inappropriate moral interpretation of nature."

"When species are reported as destructive or harmful without careful context, the audience can easily internalize the species as inherently "bad" or "malicious," which informs how we treat them. This framing does not reflect technical terms but storytelling decisions meant to help readers understand the data and results to come."

Scientists communicate research through storytelling, and ecologists frequently employ hero-villain narrative frameworks when discussing species and conservation issues. Wild pigs, for instance, are commonly portrayed as destructive villains threatening vulnerable species. However, this narrative approach creates significant problems. It inappropriately assigns moral responsibility to non-moral entities like plants and animals that operate outside human ethical frameworks. This framing limits scientific understanding and communication by oversimplifying complex ecological relationships. When species are characterized as inherently bad or malicious without proper context, audiences internalize these judgments, influencing how humans treat these species. The hero-villain trope constrains how ecologists and conservation scientists conceptualize and convey ecological science.

Read at The Conversation