Sir

Your Editorial 'The great divide' (Nature 450, 135–136; doi:10.1038/450135b 2007) argues that conservation biologists should be more involved in conservation practice. Subsequent Correspondence (Nature 451, 127; doi:10.1038/451127a 2008) suggests that this should be an integral part of the process in promotion and tenure of academic conservation biologists. In my view, this is frankly unrealistic.

Of course academic studies should inform practice, but this does not mean that academics should be practitioners. The suggestion that the value of a conservation biologist should be measured by what would have happened had that person not carried out their work, despite being almost impossible to evaluate, runs into the same problems as placing a value on any conservation activity. Should a UK institution, for example, promote a tropical-rainforest conservation biologist over a colleague who studies British moorland, or one who works on tiger conservation?

Academic research should be relevant to practice, but not practice-led. If we need to chase science that can be put into practice to demonstrate our effectiveness, conservation biology as a discipline will never move from being a reactionary science to dealing with issues of biodiversity conservation in a pro-active manner. The fact is that universities have long been subsidizing efforts in the practice of nature conservation that should be made by governments and non-governmental organizations.

The divide is one of personnel. Positions are needed for academically able and well-informed practising conservationists within governmental agencies. In Britain, this has not been the case since the Nature Conservancy split from the Natural Environment Research Council in 1973. The efforts of those academics pushing for evidence-based conservation are an important step in the right direction, but a step that should have been taken by the government long ago.