Read on Twitter
The unprecedented impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and its association with #bats have sparked a complex dialogue about zoonotic risks & conservation.
Here @Traffic_Science & I tried to provide some guidance on how to approach this conversation (thread).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320720307084
Here @Traffic_Science & I tried to provide some guidance on how to approach this conversation (thread).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320720307084
Ongoing news coverage e.g., repeatedly linking wildlife to a particular zoonotic disease, can fuel animosity towards a given species (or set of species), and potentially erode support for conservation or even fuel direct persecution of known or suspected disease reservoirs.
e.g.:
e.g.:
In this context, even well-intentioned efforts by journalists, researchers, animal welfare advocates, and conservationists to counteract dangerous negative associations between wildlife and zoonoses can lead to unintended consequences and further reinforce negative stereotypes.
Psychological science is key for effective message framing. We have drawn on the latest findings from psychology, to provide guidelines to help ensure that conservation messaging is working to neutralize dangerous and unwarranted negative-associations between bats & disease-risk.
We provide recommendations around three key areas of psychological science: (i) debunking misinformation; (ii) counteracting negative associations; and (iii) changing harmful social norms.
Here's the Spanish version of the figure, kindly translated by @CarrascoFarah.
Only by carefully framing accurate, honest and duly contextualized information will we be able to best serve society with a comprehensive and unbiased perception of #bats that minimizes zoonotic risks and allows wild species, their vital ecosystem services and humans to co-exist.
