Considerable effort has been devoted to reducing rhinoceros (i.e., rhino) horn demand by changing consumer behavior. Implementing organizations often claim that their campaigns are based on reliable insights into rhino horn demand and that there is no scientific support for any medicinal effects of rhino horn. In this opinion piece, we evaluate the scientific evidence supporting this claim and discuss how campaigns using a delusive and paternalistic approach may backfire. As the use of rhino horn in traditional medicine has a thousand-year history, it is unlikely that such deeply entrenched beliefs will be swayed by a one-sided representation of the limited scientific evidence evaluating its efficacy. Difficulties in interviewing rhino horn consumers have further contributed to lacking information about their values and characteristics. We call for more scientific evidence and a more culturally nuanced approach to rhino horn demand reduction campaigns.

通过改变消费者的行为，已经做出了相当大的努力来减少犀牛角的需求。实施组织经常声称他们的竞选活动是基于对犀牛角需求的可靠见解，并且没有科学上的支持犀牛角的药物作用。在这篇意见书中，我们评估了支持这一主张的科学证据，并讨论了使用妄想和家长式方式进行的运动可能会适得其反。由于犀牛角在传统医学中的使用已有一千多年的历史，因此这种根深蒂固的信念不太可能被评估其功效的有限科学证据的单方面表示所左右。采访犀牛角消费者的困难进一步导致缺乏有关其价值和特征的信息。