Compassionate conservation argues that actions taken to protect the Earth's diversity of life should be guided by compassion for all sentient beings. A set of essays published in Conservation Biology call to reject compassionate conservation. Critics argue that there are situations in which harming animals in conservation programs is appropriate. Three core reasons can be summarized: (1) conservation's raison d'être is biodiversity protection; (2) conservation is already compassionate to nonhumans; and (3) conservation should be compassionate to humans. We analysed these arguments, finding that objections to compassionate conservation are expressions of human exceptionalism, the view that humans are of categorically separate and higher moral status than all other species. In contrast, compassionate conservationists believe that conservation should expand its moral community by recognising all sentient beings as persons. Personhood, in an ethical sense, implies an entity is owed respect, and should never be treated merely as a means to other ends. On scientific and ethical grounds, there are good reasons to extend personhood to nonhuman animals, particularly in conservation. The moral exclusion or subordination of nonhuman beings has served to legitimate the ongoing manipulation and exploitation of the more‐than‐human world, the very reason conservation was needed in the first place. We embrace compassion for its ability to dismantle human exceptionalism, to recognise nonhuman personhood, and to navigate a more expansive moral space. Article impact statement: The debate about compassionate conservation is about whether to recognize nonhuman personhood. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved

The relationship between PhD candidate and supervisor influences successful candidate completion and helps maintain candidate satisfaction and mental health. We quantified potential mismatches between the PhD candidates’ and supervisors’ expectations as a potential mechanism that facilitates poor candidate experiences and research training outcomes based on a quantitative survey which including rank order and Likert responses. 114 PhD candidates and 52 supervisors in Australia ranked the importance of student attributes and outcomes at the beginning and end of candidature. In relation to specific attributes, supervisors indicated the level of guidance they expected to give the candidate, and candidates indicated the level of guidance they expected to receive. Candidates also report on whether different aspects of candidature influenced their mental well-being. Using rank correlation and multivariate regression statistics, we identified differences between candidates’ and supervisors’ perceived supervisor teaching responsibility and candidatures influence on mental well-being. Results indicate the majority of candidates were satisfied overall with their supervision, and find alignment of many expectations between both parties. Yet, candidates tended to have much higher expectations about achieving quantitative outcomes than supervisors. Supervisors believed they give more guidance to candidates than candidates perceive they received, and supervisors often only provided guidance when the candidate explicitly asked. Personal expectations and research progress significantly and negatively influenced over 50% of candidates’ mental well-being. Our results highlight the importance of candidates and supervisors explicitly communicating the responsibilities and expectations of the roles they play in helping candidates develop research skills. We provide four suggestions to supervisors that may be particularly effective at increasing communication, avoiding potential conflict and promoting candidate success and well-being.