Some leading conservation biologists deliver unnecessarily gloomy addresses, closing with no solutions or a few anecdotal success stories. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs), by contrast, can be too optimistic in their fund-raising lectures and magazines: false starts and dead ends don't figure, because donors prefer winners. Both groups are misjudging their audiences.

Without the attraction of carefully considered general solutions, young scientists will become disheartened or even dismissive of the conservation crisis. On the other hand, without honest admission that conservation programmes can be messy and sometimes fail, NGOs will not gain the confidence of increasingly well-educated donors. Comparative evaluations do exist of what works in conservation and what doesn't, and they need airing.

Students and philanthropists want to help. But we should strive for a nuanced balance of optimism and brutal honesty in conservation public relations.