The politics of an Alien Monster: Retrospective analysis of the use of evidence at the science-policy interface

Abstract

Indigenous to east Asian coasts the Manila clam Ruditapes philippinarum arrived in UK estuaries in the 1980s during a key period in the emergence of conservation policy and invasion science. In contrast to many non-native arrivals the introductions were intentional, and government sponsored. The British government was determined to introduce the species for aquaculture and the economic benefits that would result. To this end it circumvented its own recently introduced legislation prohibiting the “release or escape to the wild” of non-native species. This was achieved by re-interpreting the prohibition to apply only in circumstances where a species, once escaped, could successfully naturalise. The government thereby shifted attention from the unequivocal legal question of “release or escape” to scientific predictions on the species’ reproductive capability in British conditions. This sparked contention and polarisation between two groups of scientists from distinct sub-disciplines (fisheries and conservation). In the national press the species was described as an “alien monster”. Today, 40+ years after its introduction, we can reflect on the selection, interpretation and use of the evidence available at the time, and the relationship between what contrasting scientific opinions predicted, and what subsequently happened. Paradoxically, the species is now both an ecological and economic asset in southern England.