Sekar et al. argue that there is unequivocal evidence that ivory trade bans are necessary for conserving elephants, and that a growing consensus removes the need to consider or incorporate alternative values in this debate. In doing so, they overlook relevant literature [e.g., (1–3)] and do not account for marginalized voices from key range states (4). Their response illustrates why the current impasse is unlikely to be resolved without a new structured process, underpinned by recognition that interpretation of scientific information on both sides of any contentious debate is influenced by values (5, 6).