N atural and social scientists addressing complex ecological problems increasingly recognize the value of one another's research, and often seek multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, or transdisciplinary approaches to investigate real-world issues. A multidisciplinary approach involves researchers from two or more disciplines working collaboratively on a common problem, without modifying disciplinary approaches or developing synthetic conceptual frameworks. An interdisciplinary approach involves the use of an innovative conceptual framework to synthesize and modify two or more disciplinary approaches to deal with a research problem. Finally, a transdisciplinary approach involves nonacademic practitioners working with academics to identify, research, and develop solutions to real-world problems (Tress et al. 2003).Interdisciplinarity, in particular, is heralded as an educational paradigm that can meet the ecological challenges of the coming century (Palmer et al. 2005). The challenge is to develop collaborative partnerships among researchers to explore the complexity of human-nature interactions (Grimm et al. 2000). Interdisciplinary education exposes students to research in multiple disciplines, trains them in collaborative methods through team research, and promotes new forms of communication and collaboration among disciplines. The goal of interdisciplinary education is to develop new researchers and educators in "science at the leading edge" to effectively address pressing societal and environmental problems (Leshner 2004). Interdisciplinary, and now transdisciplinary, research and training are often part of university mission statements and course curricula, and are explicitly Jessica K. Graybill (e-mail: jgraybill@mail.colgate

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

The incorporation of science into environmental policy is a key concern at many levels of decision making. Various institutions have sought to standardize the protection of natural resources by requiring that decisions be made based on the "best available science." Here we present empirical data describing the incorporation of best available science in the land-use policy process on a local scale. Results are based on interviews with planners and others who conducted scientific reviews associated with a Washington State Growth Management Act amendment that requires the inclusion of best available science in protecting critical areas. Our results show that jurisdictions varied with respect to how they included science in their land-use policies. Specifically, we found that smaller jurisdictions were very reliant on scientific information provided by state agencies, communicated frequently with other jurisdictions and agencies, and most often let scientific information guide the policy development process. Medium-sized jurisdictions, in contrast, were more inwardly focused, relied predominantly on local information, communicated little with outsiders, and more often looked to political influences to guide the policy process. Large jurisdictions, including most counties, often generated their own best science, communicated with and often informed state agencies and other jurisdictions, and more often considered science first during the policy development process. Jurisdictions also differed in terms of how best available science was defined, and how jurisdictions dealt with conflicting scientific information. Our results provide empirical evidence of the variation with which best available science is used in environmental policies.