I highlight 3 points from the overall responses to statements regarding potentially controversial conservation strategies. First, discussion of the concept of triage has long been considered off limits among some conservation scientists (Marris 2007). Results from my survey demonstrate, however, that many scientists are potentially supportive of triage and prioritization efforts. For example, 50.3% and 9.3% of scientists agree or strongly agree, respectively, with the statement “Species and ecosystems are going to unravel so it is important that the conservation community considers criteria for triage decisions. If we don’t, ad hoc decisions could be even worse.”Hagerman et al. (2010) also recently found a willingness among conservation professionals to openly discuss triage issues. They argue it is time to move beyond outright rejection of triage. Results from my survey suggest that a shift in attitude may have already happened or that it always existed.Second, there seemed to be relatively modest agreement among respondents on the need to integrate ecology and economic analyses (41.5% agree or strongly agree, 26.2% neither agree nor disagree, 32.3% disagree or strongly disagree with the statement, “Economic valuation of species and ecosystems is essential for better societal decision-making.”) and some skepticism regarding the feasibility of integrated analyses (56.2% agree or strongly agree, 27.6% neither agree nor disagree, 16.2% disagree or strongly disagree with “Commoditization of species and ecosystems is inherently dangerous because it does not, and cannot, consider irreplaceable functions of biological diversity.” 47.4% agree or strongly agree, 18.5% neither agree nor disagree, 33.1% disagree or strongly disagree with “Biologists and economists cannot realistically link ecosystem function to economic value. This is a major weakness with current widespread adoption of the ecosystem services framework.”). Treating species and ecosystems as commodities was generally viewed negatively (56.2% agree or strongly agree, 27.6% neither agree nor disagree, 16.2% disagree or strongly disagree with “Commoditization of species and ecosystems is inherently dangerous because it does not, and cannot, consider irreplaceable functions of biological diversity.”), and respondents expressed relatively heavy support for rules and enforcement (64.1% agree or strongly agree, 21.3% neither agree nor disagree, 14.6% disagree or strongly disagree with “We need more rules, better monitoring, increased enforcement, and larger fines. Making damaging human behavior illegal and expensive is central to any strategy meant to protect biological diversity.”). In addition, there was a relatively high level of agreement that the species with highest probabilities of extinction and ecosystems with highest probability of land-cover conversion should receive the highest levels of investment (41.7% agree or strongly agree, 31.4% neither agree nor disagree, 26.9% disagree or strongly disagree with “The most vulnerable species and ecosystems should receive the highest levels of investment precisely because of their vulnerability.”). This is potentially in contrast to supporting comparison of marginal costs and benefits to guide investment decisions. Seen in conjunction with results from Sandbrook et al.'s (2011) ranking exercise, these results suggest scientists do not fully support the ecosystem-services concept (TEEB 2010).Third, the majority of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that conservational professionals need to be willing to rethink conservation goals and standards of success (82.0% agree or strongly agree, 13.7% neither agree nor disagree, 4.3% disagree or strongly disagree with “Conserving biological diversity in an era of climate change means that conservation professionals need to be willing to rethink conservation goals and standards of success.”). Hagerman et al. (2010) noted that climate change offered an opportunity to expand conservation goals and potentially transform conservation policy. They point out substantive change can take time and may require the critical mass of a new generation. Results from my survey suggest there is, however, already widespread belief that substantive change in conservation goals is needed. Five clusters differentiated scientists’ views on controversial conservation strategies. The interventionist cluster was central to the division of opinions on the basis of scientific standing; scientists with h≥ 13 were more likely than those with h < 13 to belong to the interventionist segment and less likely to belong to the naturally oriented cluster. Senior scientists may be more open than junior scientists to redefining conservation goals. The paucity of other significant covariates suggests scientists’ core values are driving their opinions regarding preferred management options and that those values are not reflected in their demographic characteristics or professional training.The key message of my results is that there is overwhelming agreement on the overall extent and geographic scope of loss of biological diversity among scientists with diverse professional and demographic characteristics. The degree of consensus regarding the loss of biological diversity is, in fact, much higher than the degree of consensus for the existence of anthropogenic climate change among climate scientists (Rosenberg et al. 2010). It may soon be possible to assess whether scientists’ opinions on the magnitude and timing of loss coincide with new scenario models of loss of biological diversity (Pereira et al. 2010).The degree of consensus on the magnitude of current and projected losses of biological diversity may increase policy makers’ level of confidence that investments in scientific modeling, monitoring, restoration, and institutional reform are warranted. Given the perceived severity of loss of biological diversity, scientists may be willing to discuss potentially contentious conservation options. A willingness to engage in wide-ranging discussions of these options could give policy makers more ideas and latitude with regard to conservation issues. It seems particularly timely that now, as Conservation Biology celebrates its 25th anniversary, we could be on the cusp of a period of evolution in thinking about how conservation goals might be redefined and realized as the effects of human activities and climate change escalate rapidly.