Logical fallacies persist in invasion biology and blaming the messengers will not improve accountability in this field: a response to Frank et al.

We analyze the "Logical fallacies and reasonable debates in invasion biology: a response to Guiasu and Tindale" article by Frank et al., and also discuss this work in the context of recent intense debates in invasion biology, and reactions by leading invasion biologists to critics of aspects of their field. While we acknowledge the attempt by Frank et al., at least in the second half of their paper, to take into account more diverse points of view about non-native species and their complex roles in ecosystems, we also find the accusations of misrepresenting invasion biology, for instance by "cherry-picking" and "constructing 'straw people'", directed at the Guiasu and Tindale study to be unwarranted. Despite the sometimes harsh responses by leading invasion biologists to critics of their field, we believe that persistent and fundamental problems remain in invasion biology, and we discuss some of these problems in this article. Failing to recognize these problems, and simply dismissing or minimizing legitimate criticisms, will not advance the cause, or enhance the general appeal, of invasion biology and will prevent meaningful progress in understanding the multiple contributions non-native species can bring to various ecosystems worldwide. We recommend taking a more open-minded and pragmatic approach towards non-native species and the novel ecosystems they are an integral part of.

Misleading estimates of economic impacts of biological invasions: Including the costs but not the benefits.

The economic costs of non-indigenous species (NIS) are a key factor for the allocation of efforts and resources to eradicate or control baneful invasions. Their assessments are challenging, but most suffer from major flaws. Among the most important are the following: (1) the inclusion of actual damage costs together with various ancillary expenditures which may or may not be indicative of the real economic damage due to NIS; (2) the inclusion of the costs of unnecessary or counterproductive control initiatives; (3) the inclusion of controversial NIS-related costs whose economic impacts are questionable; (4) the assessment of the negative impacts only, ignoring the positive ones that most NIS have on the economy, either directly or through their ecosystem services. Such estimates necessarily arrive at negative and often highly inflated values, do not reflect the net damage and economic losses due to NIS, and can significantly misguide management and resource allocation decisions. We recommend an approach based on holistic costs and benefits that are assessed using likely scenarios and their counter-factual.

Logical fallacies and invasion biology.

Leading invasion biologists sometimes dismiss critics and criticisms of their field by invoking "the straw man" fallacy. Critics of invasion biology are also labelled as a small group of "naysayers" or "contrarians", who are sometimes engaging in "science denialism". Such unfortunate labels can be seen as a way to possibly suppress legitimate debates and dismiss or minimize reasonable concerns about some aspects of invasion biology, including the uncertainties about the geographic origins and complex environmental impacts of species, and the control programs against species perceived as "invasive". In assessing the quality of the debate in this area, we examine the validity of the use of various strategies, including the "straw man" concept, and explore a range of potential logical fallacies present in some recent prominent discussions about invasion biology and so-called "invasive" species. The goal is to add some clarity to the concepts involved, point out some problematic issues, and improve the quality of the debates as the discussions move forward.