Here you’ll find links to all of the papers I reference within my 2026 Sharks International talk “the causes and consequences of public misunderstanding of shark conservation.”

The overall argument is published here in Integrative and Comparative Biology as an invited perspective.

Abstract: Sharks and their relatives face serious conservation challenges. In addition to more effective implementation of regulations already on the books, they need more and stronger conservation and management policies to prevent the extinction of many species, which would have associated negative ecological and economic consequences. Many members of the public are aware of and concerned by shark conservation challenges, but there is widespread misunderstanding of the threats to sharks and the available policy solutions to address those threats. Such misunderstanding has been spread by both well-intentioned but uninformed shark enthusiasts (i.e., people who care and want to help but have limited or incorrect knowledge of key facts and evidence) and also by extremist activist organizations (i.e., those far outside of mainstream norms). Specifically, many members of the public incorrectly believe that the practice of shark finning (and associated demand for shark fins) is the largest or only threat to sharks. In general, the public is far less familiar with widely used and effective tools such as sustainable fisheries management as a solution to shark conservation threats. Many members of the public incorrectly believe that banning the 1% of the global shark fin trade that is the most sustainable will be a major victory for shark conservation. Many members of the public are heavily influenced by information from uninformed extremists rather than from experts. These misunderstandings result in suboptimal policy outcomes, and even conflict between stakeholder groups that ostensibly share goals or desired outcomes. This perspective summarizes a decade of work attempting to understand the causes and consequences of widespread misunderstanding about shark conservation threats and solutions, mapping each along the Science-Policy Interface. It also proposes solutions focusing on sharing our hard-earned expertise with the interested public in an accessible format.

I referenced our media content and discourse analysis of how shark conservation is portrayed in the global English-speaking popular press. You can read it here in iScience.

Abstract: Sharks are a taxon of significant conservation concern and associated public interest. The scientific community largely supports management policies focusing on sustainable fisheries exploitation of sharks, but many concerned members of the public and some environmental advocates believe that sustainable shark fisheries cannot and do not exist and therefore support total bans on all shark fisheries and/or trade in shark products. The belief that sustainable shark fisheries cannot and do not exist persists despite scientific evidence showing that they can and do, and are important to livelihoods. Additionally, many concerned members of the public are only aware of one threat to sharks and are unaware of other threats—or of most available policy solutions. Here we assess whether the popular press plays a role in spreading misinformation and misunderstanding about these issues via the agenda-setting, priming, and cultivation roles of the media, with the goal of better understanding the causes and consequences of public confusion.

I referenced our content and discourse analysis of Shark Week. You can read it here in PLOS ONE. See also our op-ed in the Conversation highlighting key results.

Abstract: Despite evidence of their importance to marine ecosystems, at least 32% of all chondrichthyan species are estimated or assessed as threatened with extinction. In addition to the logistical difficulties of effectively conserving wide-ranging marine species, shark conservation is believed to have been hindered in the past by public perceptions of sharks as dangerous to humans. Shark Week is a high-profile, international programming event that has potentially enormous influence on public perceptions of sharks, shark research, shark researchers, and shark conservation. However, Shark Week has received regular criticism for poor factual accuracy, fearmongering, bias, and inaccurate representations of science and scientists. This research analyzes the content and titles of Shark Week episodes across its entire 32 years of programming to determine if there are trends in species covered, research techniques featured, expert identity, conservation messaging, type of programming, and portrayal of sharks. We analyzed titles from 272 episodes (100%) of Shark Week programming and the content of all available (201; 73.9%) episodes. Our data demonstrate that the majority of episodes are not focused on shark bites, although such shows are common and many Shark Week programs frame sharks around fear, risk, and adrenaline. While criticisms of disproportionate attention to particular charismatic species (e.g. great whites, bull sharks, and tiger sharks) are accurate and supported by data, 79 shark species have been featured briefly at least once. Shark Week’s depictions of research and of experts are biased towards a small set of (typically visual and expensive) research methodologies and (mostly white, mostly male) experts, including presentation of many white male non-scientists as scientific experts. While sharks are more often portrayed negatively than positively, limited conservation messaging does appear in 53% of episodes analyzed. Results suggest that as a whole, while Shark Week is likely contributing to the collective public perception of sharks as bad, even relatively small alterations to programming decisions could substantially improve the presentation of sharks and shark science and conservation issues.

I referenced our survey of the environmental advocacy community and how they engage with scientific research and evidence. Read it in Scientific Reports here.

Abstract: Many species of sharks are threatened with extinction, and there has been a longstanding debate in scientific and environmental circles over the most effective and appropriate strategy to conserve and protect them. Should we allow for sustainable fisheries exploitation of species which can withstand fishing pressure, or ban all fisheries for sharks and trade in shark products? In the developing world, exploitation of fisheries resources can be essential to food security and poverty alleviation, and global management efforts are typically focused on sustainably maximizing economic benefits. This approach aligns with traditional fisheries management and the perspectives of most surveyed scientific researchers who study sharks. However, in Europe and North America, sharks are increasingly venerated as wildlife to be preserved irrespective of conservation status, resulting in growing pressure to prohibit exploitation of sharks and trade in shark products. To understand the causes and significance of this divergence in goals, we surveyed 155 shark conservation focused environmental advocates from 78 environmental non-profits, and asked three key questions: (1) where do advocates get scientific information? (2) Does all policy-relevant scientific information reach advocates? and (3) Do advocates work towards the same policy goals identified by scientific researchers? Findings suggest many environmental advocates are aware of key scientific results and use science-based arguments in their advocacy, but a small but vocal subset of advocates report that they never read the scientific literature or speak to scientists. Engagement with science appears to be a key predictor of whether advocates support sustainable management of shark fisheries or bans on shark fishing and trade in shark products. Conservation is a normative discipline, and this analysis more clearly articulates two distinct perspectives in shark conservation. Most advocates support the same evidence-based policies as academic and government scientists, while a smaller percentage are driven more by moral and ethical beliefs and may not find scientific research relevant or persuasive. We also find possible evidence that a small group of non-profits may be misrepresenting the state of the science while claiming to use science-based arguments, a concern that has been raised by surveyed scientists about the environmental community. This analysis suggests possible alternative avenues for engaging diverse stakeholders in productive discussions about shark conservation.

Finally, I discussed how I can help you and your team with professional development training focusing on communicating science to the public. If you’re interested, let’s chat! Please email me at WhySharksMatter @ gmail.