SHOULD scientists ever put a gloss on their data to bolster support for a “good cause”? Growing unhappiness about the Red List – the Oscars of extinction risk – underline why this is bad idea (see “Conservation’s ‘Red List’ is unscientific and often wrong”). Through the list, the International Union for Conservation of Nature has done an admirable job in alerting us to the threat of species loss, but in doing so it omitted to highlight the uncertainty in its findings. As a result, valuable resources may be going into saving the wrong species, and the list itself stands to lose…
To continue reading, today with our introductory offers
Advertisement
More from New Scientist
Explore the latest news, articles and features
Life
Fossil fruits show flowering plants flourished in time of dinosaurs
News
Environment
Can home batteries help save the climate and save you money?
News
91É«ÇéƬ
We’ve uncovered a master gene that switches on human development
News
Environment
The race to understand how and when Thwaites glacier will collapse
Features
Popular articles
Trending New Scientist articles
1
If you aren't terrified by this heatwave, you should be
2
Woman with Alzheimer's starts conversing again after taking psilocybin
3
Lost books by ancient philosophers recovered from 'unreadable' scrolls
4
The race to understand how and when Thwaites glacier will collapse
5
The best sci-fi novel in 2026 so far – plus 6 other great reads
6
The surprising ways your brain changes from your 20s to your 40s
7
How menopause radically changes the brain – and what happens after
8
Possible signs of ancient life on Mars are rich in complex carbon
9
Our verdict on The Selfish Gene: An unpopular piece of popular science
10
Where, when and how to watch the 2026 solar eclipse
