Cultivating a more dynamic relationship between science and policy is essential for responding to complex social challenges such as sustainability. One approach to doing so is to “span the boundaries” between science and decision making and create a more comprehensive and inclusive knowledge exchange process. The exact definition and role of boundary spanning, however, can be nebulous. Indeed, boundary spanning often gets conflated and confused with other approaches to connecting science and policy, such as science communication, applied science, and advocacy, which can hinder progress in the field of boundary spanning. To help overcome this, in this perspective, we present the outcomes from a recent workshop of boundary-spanning practitioners gathered to (1) articulate a definition of what it means to work at this interface (“boundary spanning”) and the types of activities it encompasses; (2) present a value proposition of these efforts to build better relationships between science and policy; and (3) identify opportunities to more effectively mainstream boundary-spanning activities. Drawing on our collective experiences, we suggest that boundary spanning has the potential to increase the efficiency by which useful research is produced, foster the capacity to absorb new evidence and perspectives into sustainability decision-making, enhance research relevance for societal challenges, and open new policy windows. We provide examples from our work that illustrate this potential. By offering these propositions for the value of boundary spanning, we hope to encourage a more robust discussion of how to achieve evidence-informed decision-making for sustainability.

The concept of nature as capital is gaining visibility in policies and practices in both the public and private sectors. This change is due to an improved ability to assess and value ecosystem services, as well as to a growing recognition of the potential of an ecosystem services approach to make tradeoffs in decision making more transparent, inform efficient use of resources, enhance resilience and sustainability, and avoid unintended negative consequences of policy actions. Globally, governments, financial institutions, and corporations have begun to incorporate natural capital accounting in their policies and practices. In the United States, universities, nongovernmental organizations, and federal agencies are actively collaborating to develop and apply ecosystem services concepts to further national environmental and economic objectives. Numerous federal agencies have begun incorporating these concepts into land use planning, water resources management, and preparations for, and responses to, climate change. Going forward, well-defined policy direction will be necessary to institutionalize ecosystem services approaches in federal agencies, as well as to guide intersector and interdisciplinary collaborative research and development efforts. In addition, a new generation of decision support tools are needed to further the practical application of ecosystem services principles in policymaking and commercial activities. Improved performance metrics are needed, as are mechanisms to monitor the status of ecosystem services and assess the environmental and economic impacts of policies and programs. A greater national and international financial commitment to advancing ecosystem services and natural capital accounting would likely have broad, long-term economic and environmental benefits.

COMPASS shares a decade of experience in helping scientists become effective leaders by navigating a path from outreach to meaningful engagement with journalists and policymakers.

No abstract

Since 1980, the percentage of biomedical grants awarded to 35-and-under investigators has plummeted from 23% to 4% NIH Grantees: Where Have ALL The Young Ones Gone? Douglas Robinson, like his peers, spent his 20s in training. After 5.5 years in graduate school, he received a Ph.D. in cell biology and then worked another 4.5 years as a postdoc under a faculty mentor. When he was 31, he got an appointment at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore, Maryland, enabling him for the first time to apply for his own funding to investigate his ideas. His initial application to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) didn't get funded, but he hopes his second try will. If he succeeds, he will join a select-and vanishinggroup: those who win NIH grants before age 35.In 2001, NIH gave out 6635 "competing" grants to investigators, but only 251 of them went to people age 35 or younger. This was slightly more than the year before (see graph below). But the 35-and-under group was much larger a decade ago and dramatically larger 2 decades ago. According to statistics released last month by NIH's deputy director for extramural research, Wendy Baldwin, the percentage going to the youngest age group has declined steadily, from 23% in 1980 to below 4% last year. Meanwhile, as Congress has pumped funds into doubling NIH's budget, the share of grants to scientists age 46 and older has grown sharply.The trend is not new, nor has it gone unnoticed. But when biomedical leaders examined similar data in the early 1990s, they perceived a crisis. The National Research Council (NRC) launched an inquiry that produced two reports, one in 1994 and another in 1998. The authors called on government agencies to collect more data on young scientists and break the logjam that keeps many waiting until their 40s for an academic position. The