How “science” can facilitate the politicization of charismatic megafauna counts

Ideally, the practice of science stays independent, informs policy in real time, and facilitates learning. However, when large uncertainties go unreported or are not effectively communicated, science can, inadvertently, facilitate inappropriate politics. This unfortunate circumstance has likely occurred in the case of India’s official tiger (Panthera tigris) monitoring program and will conceivably reoccur during efforts to quantify population trends of African lions (P. leo). Attempts to arrive at population estimates at national and continent-wide scales are often so unreliable—the result of inappropriate questions, methods, or data—that interpreting population change may become a political, rather than a scientific, exercise. To minimize politicization of charismatic megafauna numbers or other quantities of interest to policymakers, researchers, and the general public (e.g., severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2] cases, atmospheric CO2 levels) and generate conclusive evidence of change, we highlight the importance of realistically accounting for scale when designing and implementing rigorous science-based monitoring programs.