While Cliff Nowell notes that the three chapters he reviews present diverse conclusions, he also paints a synthetic picture where decision making about endangered species is a dynamic mix of science and politics in which both arenas influence the outputs and texture of the other. In an effort to try to understand this mix, my chapter examined two discrete decisions in the ESA process – listing and funding. As Nowell observes, the analysis of the listing decision is more convincing than the analysis of funding decisions for a variety of statistical and methodological reasons outlined in both the Empirical Analysis and Agenda for Future Research sections of the chapter. While I have not extended this avenue of research on the ESA, a colleague who was instrumental in constructing our dataset, J. R. De Shazo (currently a faculty member at the University of California, Los Angeles' School of Public Policy and Social Research), is currently undertaking an analysis of the listing and funding decisions in which they are modeled jointly (a more statistically appropriate method), and with a more complete dataset.

Since writing this chapter, much of my research has focused on the relationship between science and policy through the lens of the social studies of science, which provides a more nuanced understanding of science as a socially constructed phenomenon, deeply rooted in the social, political, and cultural context in which it is used. The demarcation between science and politics, therefore, is not inherent or even easily identifiable or defined. Rather it is continually negotiated between the two spheres.