What does a science of environmental conservation look like? Though we often see it as a contemporary problem, engineering the interface of science and decision-making bodies has been a question since the founding of ecology. This study traces the creation of new conservation initiatives via the repeated splintering of the Ecological Society of America since the early 1900s and compares these against the results of a network analysis of contemporary scientists and their affiliations. Notwithstanding the new terminology of science-policy interfaces, brokers, and gaps, these questions often hinge on the same dilemmas as they did at the beginning of 20th century. The history of these groups shows how divisive distinctions between ecology and conservation, pure and applied research, science and politics, and facts versus values can quickly become integrated into the structure of organizations—even those that are created specifically to bridge gaps in what today would be called the science-policy interface. Meanwhile, a social network analysis of present-day scientists suggests that individual researchers are finding ways to informally “jump” across science-policy gaps at a sub-organizational level. Remarkably, these science-policy conflicts can pose major problems for organizations, even when the actual activities of members traverse these boundaries on an individual basis. When designing science policy interfaces, formal bridging mechanisms between organizations remain important but these should also support the ongoing, if under-the-radar, ways that individuals negotiate gaps between conservation research and policy advocacy.

环境保护科学是什么样的？尽管我们经常将其视为当代问题，但自生态学问世以来，设计科学与决策机构之间的接口一直是一个问题。这项研究追溯了自1900年代初以来美国生态学会的反复分裂，创造了新的保护计划，并将其与当代科学家及其所属机构的网络分析结果进行了比较。尽管采用了新的科学，政策，接口，中介和鸿沟术语，但这些问题通常与20世纪初时一样面临着同样的困境。这些群体的历史表明，生态与保护，纯粹与应用研究，科学与政治之间存在分歧，事实与价值的对比可以迅速整合到组织的结构中，甚至是专门为弥合当今所谓的科学与政策之间的差距而创建的组织。同时，对当今科学家的社交网络分析表明，个别研究人员正在寻找方法，以非正式方式“跨越”子组织级别的科学政策差距。值得注意的是，即使成员的实际活动跨越个人边界，这些科学政策冲突也可能给组织带来重大问题。在设计科学政策接口时，组织之间的正式桥接机制仍然很重要，但这些机制也应支持个人就保护研究与政策倡导之间的差距进行谈判的方式（如果不是在雷达之下）。