e. not what practitioners need; it may not be delivered in time or in appropriate formats; those interacting do not communicate well; scientists feel their credibility is negatively

affected by collaborating with practitioners; stakeholders do not feel their legitimate concerns are addressed; and so on” (Vogel et al. 2007, p. 352). The key challenge is to move beyond criticism of past efforts, and instead to provide constructive recommendations for actions that not only build on these efforts but also reflect a more nuanced understanding of science-policy dialogue. This paper VX-680 aims to provide practical and accessible recommendations, aimed at different Smad3 phosphorylation levels (from individuals and teams to click here organisations) intended to improve and promote conversations between science and policy sectors in the field of conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. We combine insights from the literature, interviews and a workshop with individuals connected with science-policy interfaces for biodiversity conservation and its sustainable use. Insights from the existing literature The ‘linear model’ of science-policy communication assumes that policy

makers pose well-defined questions, scientists provide credible, legitimate, relevant and timely knowledge (Bradshaw and Borchers 2000; Cash 2001) and policy-makers will go on to develop solutions based on this knowledge (Habermas 1971; Pielke 2007). Following this linear model, science and policy advice/decision-making are perceived

as separate domains, with science perceived as a uniquely neutral provider of objective knowledge (Van den Hove 2007; Wardekker et al. 2008), and decision-making the domain and responsibility of policy specialists (Demeritt 2006). This often leads to a focus on the packaging and presentation of scientific knowledge in order to promote its dissemination (Owens 2000), widely referred to as ‘knowledge transfer’. Though appealingly simple, and useful in some situations as a starting point to dialogue, the linear model has been criticised as being both inadequate as a description of actual science-policy processes, and inappropriate ADP ribosylation factor as an aspiration for effective dialogue (see Nutley et al. 2007; Van Kerkhoff and Lebel 2006). The view that there is a ‘fully objective, independent and impartial domain of technoscience that experts can tap into’ (Wynne et al. 2007, p. 77)—the only challenge being that they do so reliably—has been argued to be naïve for several reasons. First, research itself is not neutral and its commissioning and interpretation reflects societal values (Shaxson and Bielak 2012; Spierenburg 2012; Hoppe 2005). Second, policy processes are complex, multidimensional and unpredictable (Young 2007), incorporate multiple sources of information, not only scientific, and often use the latter selectively (Owens 2005).