Environmental evidence in action: on the science and practice of evidence synthesis and evidence-based decision-making.

In civil society we expect that policy and management decisions will be made using the best available evidence. Yet, it is widely known that there are many barriers that limit the extent to which that occurs. One way to overcome these barriers is via robust, comprehensive, transparent and repeatable evidence syntheses (such as systematic reviews) that attempt to minimize various forms of bias to present a summary of existing knowledge for decision-making purposes. Relative to other disciplines (e.g., health care, education), such evidence-based decision-making remains relatively nascent for environment management despite major threats to humanity, such as the climate, pollution and biodiversity crises demonstrating that human well-being is inextricably linked to the biophysical environment. Fortunately, there are a growing number of environmental evidence syntheses being produced that can be used by decision makers. It is therefore an opportune time to reflect on the science and practice of evidence-based decision-making in environment management to understand the extent to which evidence syntheses are embraced and applied in practice. Here we outline a number of key questions related to the use of environmental evidence that need to be explored in an effort to enhance evidence-based decision-making. There is an urgent need for research involving methods from social science, behavioural sciences, and public policy to understand the basis for patterns and trends in environmental evidence use (or misuse or ignorance). There is also a need for those who commission and produce evidence syntheses, as well as the end users of these syntheses to reflect on their experiences and share them with the broader evidence-based practice community to identify needs and opportunities for advancing the entire process of evidence-based practice. It is our hope that the ideas shared here will serve as a roadmap for additional scholarship that will collectively enhance evidence-based decision-making and ultimately benefit the environment and humanity.

Closing the knowledge-action gap in conservation with open science.

The knowledge-action gap in conservation science and practice occurs when research outputs do not result in actions to protect or restore biodiversity. Among the diverse and complex reasons for this gap, three barriers are fundamental: knowledge is often unavailable to practitioners and challenging to interpret or difficult to use or both. Problems of availability, interpretability, and useability are solvable with open science practices. We considered the benefits and challenges of three open science practices for use by conservation scientists and practitioners. First, open access publishing makes the scientific literature available to all. Second, open materials (detailed methods, data, code, and software) increase the transparency and use of research findings. Third, open education resources allow conservation scientists and practitioners to acquire the skills needed to use research outputs. The long-term adoption of open science practices would help researchers and practitioners achieve conservation goals more quickly and efficiently and reduce inequities in information sharing. However, short-term costs for individual researchers (insufficient institutional incentives to engage in open science and knowledge mobilization) remain a challenge. We caution against a passive approach to sharing that simply involves making information available. We advocate a proactive stance toward transparency, communication, collaboration, and capacity building that involves seeking out and engaging with potential users to maximize the environmental and societal impact of conservation science.

Cierre de la Brecha entre el Conocimiento y la Acción en la Conservación con Ciencia Abierta 21-311 Resumen La brecha entre el conocimiento y la acción en las ciencias de la conservación y en su práctica ocurre cuando los resultados de las investigaciones no derivan en acciones para proteger o restaurar la biodiversidad. Entre las razones complejas y diversas de esta brecha, existen tres barreras que son fundamentales: con frecuencia el conocimiento no está disponible para los practicantes, es difícil de interpretar o difícil de usar, o ambas. Los problemas con la disponibilidad, interpretabilidad y utilidad son solucionables mediante las prácticas de ciencia abierta. Consideramos los beneficios y los obstáculos de tres prácticas de ciencia abierta para su uso por parte de los científicos y practicantes de la conservación. Primero, las publicaciones de acceso abierto hacen que la literatura científica esté disponible para todos. Segundo, los materiales abiertos (métodos detallados, datos, códigos y software) incrementan la transparencia y el uso de los hallazgos de las investigaciones. Tercero, los recursos educativos abiertos permiten que los científicos y practicantes de la conservación adquieran las habilidades necesarias para utilizar los productos de las investigaciones. La adopción a largo plazo de las prácticas de ciencia abierta ayudaría a los investigadores y a los practicantes a lograr los objetivos de conservación mucho más rápido y de manera eficiente y a reducir las desigualdades que existen en la divulgación de información. Sin embargo, los costos a corto plazo para los investigadores individuales (incentivos institucionales insuficientes para participar en la ciencia abierta y en la movilización del conocimiento) todavía son un reto. Advertimos sobre las estrategias pasivas de divulgación que simplemente hacen que la información esté disponible. Abogamos por una postura proactiva hacia la transparencia, la comunicación, la colaboración y la construcción de las capacidades que incluyen la búsqueda de y la interacción con los usuarios potenciales para maximizar el impacto ambiental y social de las ciencias de la conservación.

Promises and pitfalls of digital knowledge exchange resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.

In this article, we integrate our authorship experiences with insights from nine interviews of knowledge exchange practitioners at the Canadian Forest Service about challenges and opportunities of digital knowledge exchange (KE) brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic. We aim to inform how best to maintain effective KE practices and processes in a digital-first world. Interpersonal trust and relationships are pivotal to effective knowledge exchange; thus, removing these dimensions risks losing aspects of social learning, informal and meaningful discussions, and personal connections that affect how we interpret and respond to subtle affective and social cues. For KE practitioners, lack of in-person interactions risks internal KE coordination and relevance of KE work, and diminished ability to predict and respond to user needs. However, the accelerated digital adoption has increased reach and accessibility for diverse people to exchange knowledge, and enables more frequent and rapid response to issues and events by virtually gathering diverse people almost instantly. The acceleration in digital innovation and culture has thus resulted in new tools and diversified approaches for the KE toolbox to inform decisions and practices. The long-term sustainability and effectiveness of digital KE depend on two interconnected factors: addressing the persistence of the digital divide and people's abilities to make and maintain meaningful social connections in the absence of regular face-to-face contact. We thus offer three considerations to guide KE efforts and initiative in a digital-first world: (1) consider both digital divide and equity; (2) revisit user needs and preferences for KE to address the diversity of users, and (3) leverage the diversification of KE approaches and innovations.

Researcher perspectives on challenges and opportunities in conservation physiology revealed from an online survey.

Conservation physiology represents a recently emerging arm of conservation science that applies physiological tools and techniques to understand and solve conservation issues. While a multi-disciplinary toolbox can only help to address the global biodiversity crisis, any field can face challenges while becoming established, particularly highly applied disciplines that require multi-stakeholder involvement. Gaining first-hand knowledge of the challenges that conservation physiologists are facing can help characterize the current state of the field and build a better foundation for determining how it can grow. Through an online survey of 468 scientists working at the intersection of physiology and conservation, we aimed to identify characteristics of those engaging in conservation physiology research (e.g. demographics, primary taxa of study), gauge conservation physiology's role in contributing to on-the-ground conservation action, identify the perceived barriers to achieving success and determine how difficult any identified barriers are to overcome. Despite all participants having experience combining physiology and conservation, only one-third considered themselves to be 'conservation physiologists'. Moreover, there was a general perception that conservation physiology does not yet regularly lead to tangible conservation success. Respondents identified the recent conceptualization of the field and the broader issue of adequately translating science into management action as the primary reasons for these deficits. Other significant barriers that respondents have faced when integrating physiology and conservation science included a lack of funding, logistical constraints (e.g. sample sizes, obtaining permits) and a lack of physiological baseline data (i.e. reference ranges of a physiological metric's 'normal' or pre-environmental change levels). We identified 12 actions based on suggestions of survey participants that we anticipate will help deconstruct the barriers and continue to develop a narrative of physiology that is relevant to conservation science, policy and practice.

"Consulted to death": Personal stress as a major barrier to environmental co-management.

Co-management is widely seen as a way of improving environmental governance and empowering communities. When successful, co-management enhances the validity and legitimacy of decision-making, while providing stakeholders with influence over processes and outcomes that directly impact them. However, our research with participants in co-management across several cases leads us to argue that many of the individuals who contribute to co-management are subject to significant personal stress arising from both the logistical and social/emotional demands of participation in these processes. We argue that the literature on co-management has touched on this only indirectly, and that personal stress is a major challenge for participants that ought to be integrated into research agendas and addressed by policy-makers. In this article, we review the contours of the personal stress issue as it has appeared in our observations of co-management events and interviews with participants. While these findings are partial and preliminary, we argue that personal stress has theoretical and practical significance to the broader literature and process design. We conclude the article with recommendations for participants, researchers and policy-makers about how to consider and respond to problems of personal stress.

Collaboration and engagement produce more actionable science: quantitatively analyzing uptake of fish tracking studies.

Aquatic telemetry technology generates new knowledge about the underwater world that can inform decision-making processes and thus can improve conservation and natural resource management. Still, there is lack of evidence on how telemetry-derived knowledge can or has informed management, and what factors facilitate or deter its use. We present one of the first quantitative studies related to the science-action gap and evaluate factors that influence the uptake of fish telemetry findings into policies and practices, as well as social acceptance of these findings. We globally surveyed 212 fish telemetry researchers regarding the knowledge uptake of an applied fish telemetry research project of their choice. Respondents' personal and professional attributes, as well as the attributes of their chosen projects, were analyzed using machine learning algorithms to identify important factors that influenced the uptake (i.e., use, trust, and/or acceptance) of their findings. Researchers with extensive collaborations and who spent more time engaging in public outreach experienced greater uptake of their findings. Respondents with greater telemetry experience and commitment (e.g., more telemetry publications, higher proportion of research on fish telemetry) tended to achieve more social acceptance of their findings. Projects led by researchers who were highly involved and familiar with the fisheries management processes, and those where greater effort was devoted to research dissemination, also tended to experience greater uptake. Last, the levels of complexity and controversy of the issue addressed by the research project had a positive influence on the uptake of findings. The empirical results of this study support recent messages in the science practitioner literature for greater collaboration, knowledge co-production with partners, and public engagement to enable the transfer of knowledge and the use of evidence in decision-making and policies. Scientific organizations should consider shifting reward incentives to promote engagement and collaboration with non-scientific actors, and perhaps even rethinking hiring practices to consider personal and professional characteristics or attitudes such as altruism and networking skills given the influence of these factors in our model. Last, networks composed of both research and practice potentially have a key role in brokering and facilitating knowledge exchange and actions.

Acoustic telemetry and fisheries management.

This paper reviews the use of acoustic telemetry as a tool for addressing issues in fisheries management, and serves as the lead to the special Feature Issue of Ecological Applications titled Acoustic Telemetry and Fisheries Management. Specifically, we provide an overview of the ways in which acoustic telemetry can be used to inform issues central to the ecology, conservation, and management of exploited and/or imperiled fish species. Despite great strides in this area in recent years, there are comparatively few examples where data have been applied directly to influence fisheries management and policy. We review the literature on this issue, identify the strengths and weaknesses of work done to date, and highlight knowledge gaps and difficulties in applying empirical fish telemetry studies to fisheries policy and practice. We then highlight the key areas of management and policy addressed, as well as the challenges that needed to be overcome to do this. We conclude with a set of recommendations about how researchers can, in consultation with stock assessment scientists and managers, formulate testable scientific questions to address and design future studies to generate data that can be used in a meaningful way by fisheries management and conservation practitioners. We also urge the involvement of relevant stakeholders (managers, fishers, conservation societies, etc.) early on in the process (i.e., in the co-creation of research projects), so that all priority questions and issues can be addressed effectively.

A roadmap for knowledge exchange and mobilization research in conservation and natural resource management.

Scholars across all disciplines have long been interested in how knowledge moves within and beyond their community of peers. Rapid environmental changes and calls for sustainable management practices mean the best knowledge possible is needed to inform decisions, policies, and practices to protect biodiversity and sustainably manage vulnerable natural resources. Although the conservation literature on knowledge exchange (KE) and knowledge mobilization (KM) has grown in recent years, much of it is based on context-specific case studies. This presents a challenge for learning cumulative lessons from KE and KM research and thus effectively using knowledge in conservation and natural resources management. Although continued research on the gap between knowledge and action is valuable, overarching conceptual frameworks are now needed to enable summaries and comparisons across diverse KE-KM research. We propose a knowledge-action framework that provides a conceptual roadmap for future research and practice in KE/KM with the aim of synthesizing lessons learned from contextual case studies and guiding the development and testing of hypotheses in this domain. Our knowledge-action framework has 3 elements that occur at multiple levels and scales: knowledge production (e.g., academia and government), knowledge mediation (e.g., knowledge networks, actors, relational dimension, and contextual dimension), and knowledge-based action (e.g., instrumental, symbolic, and conceptual). The framework integrates concepts from the sociology of science in particular, and serves as a guide to further comprehensive understanding of knowledge exchange and mobilization in conservation and sustainable natural resource management.

How do potential knowledge users evaluate new claims about a contested resource? Problems of power and politics in knowledge exchange and mobilization.

This article examines how potential users of scientific and local/traditional/experiential knowledge evaluate new claims to knowing, using 67 interviews with government employees and non-governmental stakeholders involved in co-managing salmon fisheries in Canada's Fraser River. Research has consistently shown that there are major obstacles to moving new knowledge into policy, management, and public domains. New concepts such as Knowledge Exchange (KE) and Knowledge Mobilization (KMb) are being used to investigate these obstacles, but the processes by which potential users evaluate (sometimes competing) knowledge claims remain poorly understood. We use concepts from the sociology of science and find that potential users evaluate new knowledge claims based on three broad criteria: (1) the perceived merits of the claim, (2) perceptions of the character and motivation of the claimant, and (3) considerations of the social and political context of the claim. However, government employees and stakeholders have different interpretations of these criteria, leading to different knowledge preferences and normative expectations of scientists and other claimants. We draw both theoretical and practical lessons from these findings. With respect to theory, we argue that the sociology of science provides valuable insights into the political dimensions of knowledge and should be explicitly incorporated into KE/KMb research. With respect to practice, our findings underline the need for scientists and other claimants to make conscious decisions about whose expectations they hope to meet in their communications and engagement activities.

To manage inland fisheries is to manage at the social-ecological watershed scale.

Approaches to managing inland fisheries vary between systems and regions but are often based on large-scale marine fisheries principles and thus limited and outdated. Rarely do they adopt holistic approaches that consider the complex interplay among humans, fish, and the environment. We argue that there is an urgent need for a shift in inland fisheries management towards holistic and transdisciplinary approaches that embrace the principles of social-ecological systems at the watershed scale. The interconnectedness of inland fisheries with their associated watershed (biotic, abiotic, and humans) make them extremely complex and challenging to manage and protect. For this reason, the watershed is a logical management unit. To assist management at this scale, we propose a framework that integrates disparate concepts and management paradigms to facilitate inland fisheries management and sustainability. We contend that inland fisheries need to be managed as social-ecological watershed system (SEWS). The framework supports watershed-scale and transboundary governance to manage inland fisheries, and transdisciplinary projects and teams to ensure relevant and applicable monitoring and research. We discuss concepts of social-ecological feedback and interactions of multiple stressors and factors within/between the social-ecological systems. Moreover, we emphasize that management, monitoring, and research on inland fisheries at the watershed scale are needed to ensure long-term sustainable and resilient fisheries.

On the sustainability of inland fisheries: Finding a future for the forgotten.

At present, inland fisheries are not often a national or regional governance priority and as a result, inland capture fisheries are undervalued and largely overlooked. As such they are threatened in both developing and developed countries. Indeed, due to lack of reliable data, inland fisheries have never been part of any high profile global fisheries assessment and are notably absent from the Sustainable Development Goals. The general public and policy makers are largely ignorant of the plight of freshwater ecosystems and the fish they support, as well as the ecosystem services generated by inland fisheries. This ignorance is particularly salient given that the current emphasis on the food-water-energy nexus often fails to include the important role that inland fish and fisheries play in food security and supporting livelihoods in low-income food deficit countries. Developing countries in Africa and Asia produce about 11 million tonnes of inland fish annually, 90 % of the global total. The role of inland fisheries goes beyond just kilocalories; fish provide important micronutrients and essentially fatty acids. In some regions, inland recreational fisheries are important, generating much wealth and supporting livelihoods. The following three key recommendations are necessary for action if inland fisheries are to become a part of the food-water-energy discussion: invest in improved valuation and assessment methods, build better methods to effectively govern inland fisheries (requires capacity building and incentives), and develop approaches to managing waters across sectors and scales. Moreover, if inland fisheries are recognized as important to food security, livelihoods, and human well-being, they can be more easily incorporated in regional, national, and global policies and agreements on water issues. Through these approaches, inland fisheries can be better evaluated and be more fully recognized in broader water resource and aquatic ecosystem planning and decision-making frameworks, enhancing their value and sustainability for the future.

Getting past the blame game: Convergence and divergence in perceived threats to salmon resources among anglers and indigenous fishers in Canada's lower Fraser River.

This article examines threat perception as a potential dimension of inter-group conflict over salmon fisheries in Canada's Fraser River watershed. Environmental changes and the entry of new user groups are putting pressure on both the resource and regulators, as well as threatening to exacerbate conflicts, notably between First Nation (indigenous) fishers and non-indigenous recreational anglers. While resource conflicts are often superficially conceptualized as cases of competing interests, we build on recent studies suggesting that conflicts are associated with deeper cognitive and perceptual differences among user groups. We report findings from 422 riverbank interviews with First Nation fishers and recreational anglers focusing on perceptions of threat to the fisheries. Responses reveal both substantial agreement and disagreement in threat perceptions between the two groups. These patterns provide a potential roadmap for consensus building, and suggest possible avenues for policy-makers to defuse the "blame game" that often dominates this type of conflict.

How long is too long in contemporary peer review? Perspectives from authors publishing in conservation biology journals.

Delays in peer reviewed publication may have consequences for both assessment of scientific prowess in academics as well as communication of important information to the knowledge receptor community. We present an analysis on the perspectives of authors publishing in conservation biology journals regarding their opinions on the importance of speed in peer-review as well as how to improve review times. Authors were invited to take part in an online questionnaire, of which the data was subjected to both qualitative (open coding, categorizing) and quantitative analyses (generalized linear models). We received 637 responses to a total of 6,547 e-mail invitations sent. Peer-review speed was generally perceived as slow, with authors experiencing a typical turnaround time of 14 weeks while their perceived optimal review time is six weeks. Male and younger respondents seem to have higher expectations of review speed than females and older respondents. Majority of participants attributed lengthy review times to the 'stress' on the peer-review system (i.e., reviewer and editor fatigue), while editor persistence and journal prestige were believed to speed up the review process. Negative consequences of lengthy review times appear to be greater for early career researchers and can also have impact on author morale (e.g. motivation or frustration). Competition among colleagues were also of concern to respondents. Incentivizing peer review was among the top suggested alterations to the system along with training graduate students in peer review, increased editorial persistence, and changes to the norms of peer-review such as opening the peer-review process to the public. It is clear that authors surveyed in this study view the peer-review system as under stress and we encourage scientists and publishers to push the envelope for new peer review models.

Disentangling the roles of air exposure, gill net injury, and facilitated recovery on the postcapture and release mortality and behavior of adult migratory sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) in freshwater.

We sought to improve the understanding of delayed mortality in migrating sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) captured and released in freshwater fisheries. Using biotelemetry, blood physiology, and reflex assessments, we evaluated the relative roles of gill net injury and air exposure and investigated whether using a recovery box improved survival. Fish (n=238), captured by beach seine, were allocated to four treatment groups: captured only, air exposed, injured, and injured and air exposed. Only half of the fish in each group were provided with a 15-min facilitated recovery. After treatment, fish were radio-tagged and released to resume their migration. Blood status was assessed in 36 additional untagged fish sampled after the four treatments. Compared with fish sampled immediately on capture, all treatments resulted in elevated plasma lactate and cortisol concentrations. After air exposure, plasma osmolality was elevated and reflexes were significantly impaired relative to the control and injured treatments. Injured fish exhibited reduced short-term migration speed by 3.2 km/d and had a 14.5% reduced survival to subnatal watersheds compared to controls. The 15-min facilitated recovery improved reflex assessment relative to fish released immediately but did not affect survival. We suggest that in sockeye salmon migrating in cool water temperatures (∼13°-16°C), delayed mortality can result from injury and air exposure, perhaps through sublethal stress, and that injury created additive delayed mortality likely via secondary infections.

Bycatch mortality of endangered coho salmon: impacts, solutions, and aboriginal perspectives.

We used biotelemetry and human dimensions surveys to explore potential solutions to migration mortality of an endangered population of coho salmon caught as bycatch in an aboriginal beach seine fishery. From 2009 to 2011, 182 wild coho salmon caught as bycatch in the lower Fraser River (Canada) were radio-tagged and tracked as they attempted to complete their migrations to natal spawning areas over 300 km upstream. Failure to survive to reach terminal radio receiving stations averaged 39% over three years. This mortality estimate is low compared to those obtained from telemetry studies on other salmon fisheries in the Fraser River. However, this value is markedly higher than the mortality estimate currently used to manage the fishery's impact. It is also in contrast to the perceptions of the majority of aboriginal fishers, who did not think survival of coho salmon is affected by capture and release from their fishery. Increased probability of survival was associated with lower reflex impairment, which is consistent with previous findings. Reflex impairment was positively correlated with entanglement time, suggesting that greater efforts by the fishers to release bycatch from their nets quickly would minimize post-release mortality. Survey responses by aboriginal fishers also suggested that they are receptive to employing new bycatch handling methods if they are shown to increase post-release survival. However, attempts to facilitate revival of a subset of captured fish using cylindrical in-river recovery bags did not improve migration success. Fisheries managers could use the new information from this study to better quantify impacts and evaluate different harvest options. Since aboriginal fishers were receptive to using alternate handling methods, efforts to improve knowledge on minimizing reflex impairment through reductions in handling time could help increase bycatch survival. Such a direct integration of social science and applied ecology is a novel approach to understanding conservation issues that can better inform meaningful actions to promote species recovery.

Recreational anglers' attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors related to catch-and-release practices of Pacific salmon in British Columbia.

The fate of captured and released fish in recreational fisheries depends in large part on fisher handling and behavior. As such, there is a need for promoting adoption of responsible fishing practices. We interviewed recreational sockeye salmon anglers in the lower Fraser River, British Columbia, to assess their awareness of responsible fishing practices and identify gaps where improved education could promote conservation-oriented behaviors. Based on our interview data, we developed three latent class models of salmon angler typologies based on: 1) anglers' fishing behaviors and preferences, 2) anglers' perceived risks to salmon survival due to post-capture live release, and 3) anglers' level of support for education programs. In the first model, we identified salmon-only anglers (33% of sample), lake-species specialists (46%), and all-around anglers (21%). These classes were differentiated primarily by non-salmon fishing activities (e.g., other target species). In the second model, we found four classes of anglers who differed with regards to key factors they thought affected post-release survival: air exposure (39% of sample); water temperature (24%); hook location (22%); and revival effort (15%). In the third model, we found anglers were either supporters (73%) or non-supporters (27%) of angler education programs. Heterogeneity existed among anglers but we found no correlations in angler classes across models, nor any significant demographic or experiential predictors of class membership. Respondents generally had high awareness and application of catch-and-release best practices, with lake-species specialists rating a higher awareness and usage of recommended catch-and-release technique, and were significantly more likely to cut the line on deeply hooked fish than other groups. Our findings provide resource managers with important insight into the attitudes and behaviors of sockeye salmon anglers in the important lower Fraser River recreational fishery. Our findings also highlight, however, the need for further research on the determinants of angler beliefs and behavior in order to customize programs to build anglers' awareness and adoption of responsible fishing practices.

Generation of priority research questions to inform conservation policy and management at a national level.

Integrating knowledge from across the natural and social sciences is necessary to effectively address societal tradeoffs between human use of biological diversity and its preservation. Collaborative processes can change the ways decision makers think about scientific evidence, enhance levels of mutual trust and credibility, and advance the conservation policy discourse. Canada has responsibility for a large fraction of some major ecosystems, such as boreal forests, Arctic tundra, wetlands, and temperate and Arctic oceans. Stressors to biological diversity within these ecosystems arise from activities of the country's resource-based economy, as well as external drivers of environmental change. Effective management is complicated by incongruence between ecological and political boundaries and conflicting perspectives on social and economic goals. Many knowledge gaps about stressors and their management might be reduced through targeted, timely research. We identify 40 questions that, if addressed or answered, would advance research that has a high probability of supporting development of effective policies and management strategies for species, ecosystems, and ecological processes in Canada. A total of 396 candidate questions drawn from natural and social science disciplines were contributed by individuals with diverse organizational affiliations. These were collaboratively winnowed to 40 by our team of collaborators. The questions emphasize understanding ecosystems, the effects and mitigation of climate change, coordinating governance and management efforts across multiple jurisdictions, and examining relations between conservation policy and the social and economic well-being of Aboriginal peoples. The questions we identified provide potential links between evidence from the conservation sciences and formulation of policies for conservation and resource management. Our collaborative process of communication and engagement between scientists and decision makers for generating and prioritizing research questions at a national level could be a model for similar efforts beyond Canada.