ABSTRACT
The concept of a “boundary” for science emerged when scientists increasingly felt the need to demarcate scientific from other non-scientific activities. And while a hard boundary protected science from fraud or pseudo-science, it was less effective in areas where the production of science aimed to go beyond the identification and framing of a problem (i.e. basic science) to inform the design of solutions to address it (i.e. applied science). The existence and need for this boundary became increasingly contested as societies came to perceive the potential of science to solve humanities’ greatest and most politicized problems. The emphasis shifted from a total separation of science and decision-making towards a blurred boundary ( Jasanoff 1990) that bridged science and decisionmaking while providing protection from both the undue influence of politics on science (“politicization of science”) and the excessive domination of science in the design and implementation of policy (“scienticization of policy”).
