Science advice as boundary work: expertise, politics and protracted policy conflict

The demarcation of science from 'non-science', and between different types of scientific evidence, has been a long-standing interest in practice and research. This paper focuses on the ways in which boundary work is conduced... [ view full abstract ]

The demarcation of science from 'non-science', and between different types of scientific evidence, has been a long-standing interest in practice and research. This paper focuses on the ways in which boundary work is conduced to provide evidence to inform contested policy arenas. The paper advances understanding by focusing on 'boundary work' between science, its advisory role, and the world of politics. It is argued that a focus on 'boundary work' moves beyond existing accounts that centre on 'honest brokers' (Pielke) or 'boundary organisations' (Jasanoff), and places focus on the particular resources and reputation of particular experts. To illustrate this argument, this paper utilises unique research into two cases relating to bovine tuberculosis (Tb) in New Zealand and the United Kingdom, one involving the use of airdrops of a highly toxic poison ('1080'), the other the largest ever field trial to assess the impact of culling of badgers on bovine Tb. Both cases represent multi-dimensional and protracted conflicts among conservation, environmental and agricultural interests. They highlight the centrality of multiple forms of boundary work outside the scope of 'boundary organisations', and also the ambiguous impact of scientific evidence on policy trajectories.