REFLEXIONES FINALES

In the USA, the delivery of P. ramorum research outputs into national policy outcomes is highly complex and consists of elements of the ‘civil mandate’, ‘critical participant’ and ‘trickle out’

boundary arrangements.

At the heart of delivering scientific input into regulatory goals in the USA is the Centre for Plant Health Science and Technology (CPHST). CPHST is responsible for ensuring that the Plant Health, Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) arm of USDA-APHIS has the information, tools and technology to make the most scientifically valid regulatory and policy decisions possible (USDA-APHIS 2010b). National science program leaders are assigned responsibility for particular organisms, with Dr Russ Bulluck currently leading the emergency response team who are responsible for the delivery of P. ramorum research to the national program for P. ramorum regulation (USDA-APHIS 2010c). This mandate makes clear that the CPHST works as a

‘boundary organisation’. Given this, CPHST can operate to instigate ‘civil mandate’ boundary arrangements to answer specific policy related questions.

A P. ramorum virtual technical working group was formed in February of 2011 by CPHST, asking for input from a wide range of international Phytophthora scientists on select questions related to the biology of P. ramorum (Ross Bulluck, CPHST, personal communication). This is a prime example of a ‘civil mandate’ boundary arrangement as scientists are asked specific policy-related questions on the biology of P. ramorum. By directly engaging with scientists in this way one could also argue that a component of ‘critical participant’ also comes into play as policy-makers rely on the advice and recommendations of scientists in a two-way discussion of regulatory priorities.

The accumulated knowledge and research outputs of these Phytophthora scientists are often borne out of either government or privately funded research grants granted to private consultancies such as Phytosphere in California (i.e. Swiecki & Bernhardt 2007), academic institutions such as UC Davis and UC Berkeley (e.g. Davidson et al. 2005; Mascheretti et al.

2009) and federal government departments such as the USFS and USDA-ARS (e.g. Goheen et al. 2002; Tooley & Browning 2009). While this research may be delivered through a ‘civil mandate’ boundary arrangement, particularly in the case of federally funded research scientists, and as described for CPHST, it is more likely that the research is delivered in a ‘trickle out’

arrangement. Under this arrangement non-federally funded researchers may then rally for their results to be taken up by policy-making authorities, or if they have specifically written grants

which addressed particular management or control concerns then the uptake of such technology may be aided. It is important to note that federally funded scientists are not allowed to rally for their results to be take up at a policy level, but are simply required to provide results and state scientifically based implications of their research for use by the appropriate authorities (Susan Frankel, USFS, personal communication), lending their results to predominantly be utilised in a

‘civil mandate’ arrangement.

The research of control measures using phosphite (Garbelotto et al. 2007) and identifying potentially resistant lines of tanoak (N. densiflorus) (Hayden et al. 2011) to protect individual trees or maintain forest structure in the future are both examples of scientifically driven research initiatives with direct implications for management. These implications can then be

communicated to the relevant land managers and authorities, but run the risk of only happening in a ‘trickle out’ arrangement. The communication and integration of these scientific outputs is driven in California by COMTF, who run frequent training programs on mitigation methods such as the application of phosphite for individual tree protection (COMTF 2011). COMTF was specifically formed for this purpose as a result of substantial public outcry and interest in the pathogen and its destructive potential (Alexander & Lee 2010). They effectively work as a

‘knowledge broker’ in this boundary arrangement (see Section 5.2.1).

5.2.2.1 Advantages of delivery of US P. ramorum science into national policy: a complex of civil mandate, critical participant and trickle out

Having a specific ‘boundary organisation’ already established in the USA is beneficial as it allows for a starting point for politicians to seek advice to specific policy/regulatory related scientific information, not only for P. ramorum, but for any new or emerging pathogen or pest.

Provided that staff are in stable positions it also allows for a continuity of intellect and

knowledge in the organisation which may be applicable beyond a single emergency pathogen or pest. CPHST may then be able to take advantage of pre-existing research which may have developed as a result of a ‘trickle out’ boundary arrangement where scientists have secured their own funding for projects of their own design.

5.2.2.2 Disadvantages of delivery of US P. ramorum science into national policy: a complex of civil mandate, critical participant and trickle out

The sheer complexity of the US system for the delivery of science into policy outcomes is likely to result in deficiencies, as confusion about the best means to deliver scientific outputs to policy makers is not clear. In the ‘civil mandate’ questionnaire approach used by the CPHST, the amount of scientific output would be limited by the information that they gather from those who have the time or inclination to respond to such a communication. In this case, the establishment of effective relationships in a ‘janus face’ type boundary arrangement may be particularly beneficial. In the ‘trickle out’ boundary arrangement there is a high risk that pertinent research findings will not be communicated to the suitable policy-making authorities in a clear or timely manner. Scientists may choose to work purely for academic interest, without communicating their research effectively once completed (Howden et al. 2007).

It is also important to note that the limited role of federally funded scientists, wherein they are simply required to provide results and state scientifically based implications of their research for use by the appropriate authorities, may also contribute to a lack of science being communicated into policy outcomes. The intellect of some of these scientists, who are likely to be some of the most directly involved in current issues and well-educated researchers may not be made available to produce the best policy outcomes through use of arrangements such as ‘janus face’

and ‘trickle out’.