This is the fourth in a series of guest posts by Joel Barkan, a previous contributor to “The Intersection” and a graduate student at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. The renowned Scripps marine biologist Jeremy Jackson is teaching his famed “Marine Science, Economics, and Policy” course for what may be the last time this year (along with Jennifer Jacquet), and Joel will be reporting each week on the contents of the course.

“Find a CITES, find myself a CITES to live in.” Isn’t that how the Talking Heads song goes? No? Either way, I had the tune stuck in my head all afternoon during our most recent class, in which we discussed the merits of listing species on both the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and the IUCN’s Red List of Threatened Species. The student presentations covered the listing criteria and some of the problems associated with both groups. CITES has successfully impeded illegal trade of tropical reptiles and amphibians, but it lacks the same influence with marine species. For instance, China removed itself from the CITES treaty and freely imports dead seahorses, which are used for traditional medicinal purposes.

Many students seemed puzzled by the role of CITES and the Red List. What exactly are we trying to accomplish by making lists of animals that are in really, really big trouble? Adding a doomed species to a list of other species that aren’t doing so hot doesn’t magically solve the problem, as one student pointed out during our discussion. I came away frustrated at the IUCN’s unwillingness to stand up for the species it so painstakingly evaluates. Each species on the Red List receives a thorough population analysis by groups of unbiased scientists. The product is a detail-rich compilation of thousands of species—some critically endangered, some vulnerable, all meticulously calculated by the IUCN.

So what does the Red List do? You tell me. When I visited the San Diego Zoo a few weeks ago, I read the Red List status of every animal I saw, from the Komodo Dragon (Vulnerable) to the Harpy Eagle (Near Threatened). It’s a wealth of information, sitting on the internet, on dusty library shelves, on sun-bleached zoo placards. The Red List prides itself on its objectivity. It doesn’t want to ruffle any feathers. I think it needs to be subjective. It needs to stick its neck out and make assertive policy recommendations based on its research. I’m sure policy-makers use information from the Red List when making decisions, but the IUCN’s own voice would be welcomed and respected; after all, they did all the grunt work. It’s one thing to make a list—I used to make one every December for Santa. It’s another thing to use your hard work to help make difficult decisions that could lead to important changes.