Model Forests were developed to bridge the gap between the emerging policy and the practice of sustainable forest management (SFM) in the early 1990s and, as such, to facilitate uptake of research findings into practice. The purpose of this study was to explore mechanisms that may explain why some research results are used in the policy and practice of SFM and others are not. Based on interviews in three Model Forests in Canada, the most prominent factors influencing research utilization identified were (1) relevance of the research findings to users’ needs, (2) effective research design and scientific credibility, and (3) user involvement in the research process. However, it was evident that there is no one factor that influences uptake, but rather a combination dependent upon the circumstances of each situation. This study also deepens understanding of the science–practice/policy interface by exploring the notion of Model Forests as boundary organizations.

The purpose of research aid is to contribute to development in different ways through the use of research. Sarec (the Swedish Agency for Research Cooperation with Developing Countries) was one of the pioneers within state research aid, and existed between 1975 and 2008. This dissertation studies Sarec’s policy from a historical perspective with the help of official documents and interviews with former directors. Discourse theory together with concepts from Science and Technology Studies comprise the theoretical framework of the study. One of the central questions asked is how the view of the relationship between research and development has changed over time. One of the conclusions is that there are two main policy discourses that are established early on and that can be traced throughout the entire period studied. The two discourses share the starting point that modern science can contribute to development and that national research capacity is an important component in this. The localist discourse represents a more multifaceted view of how research can contribute to development, and what that development consist of. It is more explicitly anti-colonialist and to a greater degree prioritizes the local context as basis for decisions regarding support. The universalist discourse places less emphasis on where knowledge is produced since it can be used anywhere, as long as the right structures and priorities are in place. The discourses reflect different views of knowledge and development. Some decades one discourse dominates over the other, and other decades they are more equal. / Forskningsbistånd har som syfte att bidra till att forskning på olika sätt leder till utveckling. Sarec (the Swedish Agency for Research Cooperation with Developing Countries) var en av pionjärerna inom statligt forskningsbistånd och existerade mellan 1975 och 2008. I denna avhandling studeras Sarecs policy ur ett historiskt perspektiv med hjälp av offentliga dokument och intervjuer med före detta chefer. Diskursteori tillsammans med begrepp från teknik- och vetenskapsstudier utgör det teoretiska ramverket för studien. Frågor som ställs är till exempel hur synen på relationen mellan forskning och utveckling har förändrats över tid. En av slutsatserna är att det finns två stora policydiskurser som etableras tidigt och som går att följa under hela perioden. Båda innefattar en stark tro på modern vetenskap och dess möjlighet att bidra till utveckling, samt på att forskningskapacitet är en viktig komponent i detta. Den lokalistiska diskursen representerar en mer mångfacetterad syn på hur forskning kan bidra till utveckling samt vad denna utveckling är. Den är mer explicit antikolonialistisk i sin ansats och prioriterar i högre grad den lokala kontexten som grund för beslut kring stöd. Den universalistiska diskursen betonar att det spelar mindre roll var kunskapen produceras eftersom den kan nyttjas varsomhelst, bara rätt strukturer och prioriteringar finns på plats. Diskurserna speglar olika syn på kunskap och utveckling. Vissa årtionden dominerar en diskurs över den andra, och andra årtionden är de mer jämbördiga.

This thesis examines the Swedish political response to the challenges posed by gene technology, seen through the prism of governmental commissions. It discerns and analyses continuities and changes in the Swedish political conception of gene technology, over the course of two decades, 1980–2000. This is done by thematically following ideas of “risks” and “ethics” as they are represented in the inner workings and reception of three governmental commissions. The Gene-Ethics Commission (1981–1984), the Gene Technology Commission (1990–1992) and the Biotechnology Commission (1997–2000) form the empirical focal points of this analysis. The first two provided preparatory policy proposals that preceded the implementation of the Swedish gene technology laws of 1991 and 1994. The last one aimed at presenting a comprehensive Swedish biotechnology policy for the new millennium. The study takes into account the role of governmental commissions as arenas where science and politics intersect in Swedish political life, and illuminates how this type of “boundary organisation”, placed on the border of science and politics, impinges on the understanding of the gene technology issue. The commissions have looked into the limits, dangers, possibilities and future applications of gene technology. They have been appointed to deal with the problematic task of distinguishing between what is routine and untested practices, realistic prediction and “science fiction”, what are unique problems and what are problems substantially similar to older ones, what constitutes a responsible approach as opposed to misconduct and what it means to let things “get out of hand” in contrast to being “in control”. Throughout a period of twenty years, media reports have continued to frame the challenges posed by gene technology as a task of balancing risks and benefits, walking the fine line between “frankenfoods” and “miracle drugs”. One salient problem for the commissions to solve was that science and industry seemed to promote a technology the public opposed and resisted, at least in parts. For both politics and science to gain, or regain, public trust it needed to demonstrate that risks – be it environmental, ethical or health related ones – were under control. Under the surface, it was much more complicated than “science helping politics” to make informed and rational decisions on how to formulate a regulatory policy. Could experts be trusted to participate in policy-making in a neutral way and was it not important, in accordance with democratic norms, to involve the public?