1 From: Pages 285-293 Conservation Biology in Asia (2006) McNeely, J.A., T. M. McCarthy, A. Smith, L. Olsvig-Whittaker, and E.D. Wikramanayake (editors). Published by the Society for Conservation Biology Asia Section and Resources Himalaya, Kathmandu, Nepal, 455 pp. ISBN 99946-996-9-5 CHAPTER 20 INEFFECTIVE AND UNSUSTAINABLE POISONING OF NATIVE SMALL MAMMALS IN TEMPERATE ASIA: A CLASSIC CASE OF THE SCIENCE-POLICY DIVIDE By ANDREW T. SMITH 1 , PETER ZAHLER 2 AND LYN A. HINDS 3 1 School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-4501, USA 2 Wildlife Conservation Society, Bronx, NY 10460, USA 3 CSIRO Entomology, Canberra, ACT 2601, Australia ABSTRACT Across the grasslands of temperate Asia, native small mammals are frequently considered pests and subjected to massive control (poisoning) programs by policy-makers. Conservation scientists, however, frequently consider these animals to be indicators rather than the cause of rangeland degradation, while also being keystone species for biodiversity – poisoning is followed by a cascading loss of other species dependent upon them and a corresponding loss of many positive ecosystem functions. Why has the conservation science view not prevailed? Why are many poisoning programs receiving huge government subsidies? We contrast the disconnect between policy-makers and managers with the views held by conservation scientists and urge a common ground so that scientific studies can better inform policy and support overarching goals to preserve biodiversity on Asia’s grasslands Key Words: Biodiversity conservation, Control, Mammal, Poisoning, Policy INTRODUCTION Policy and science are two engines of a modern civil society, and ideally they are complementary and together contribute to the well-being of people. Policy-makers identify and define significant issues, and ultimately make decisions about them. Along the way they may ask for assistance from scientists to give a neutral analysis of the issue in question. Thus scientific objectivity can inform policy-makers and help them avoid decisions that will be counter-productive or a detriment to society. In the real world, however, this process is flawed (McNeely 1999; Sarawitz 2004). The failure of policy-makers and scientists to collaborate successfully can be traced to the distinct differences in these two ways of thinking. Scientists highlight the uncertainty in their findings, whereas policy-makers must make clear “yes-no” decisions and may be impatient with the reasoned statistical analyses presented to them by scientists. Scientists may be driven exclusively by intellectual curiosity, while policy-makers feel that they are on the front lines and must act in given situations whether they want to or not. Finally, policy makers are influenced by and must answer to a host of stakeholders, including those with long-held if sometimes erroneous opinions related to the issues under consideration, as well as those with economic incentives to maintain the status quo. Ultimately, there is often a communications gap between the