AbstractBovine tuberculosis (bTB) is an important animal health and economic problem for the cattle industry and a potential zoonotic threat. Wild badgers (Meles meles) play a role on its epidemiology in some areas of high prevalence in cattle, particularly in the UK and Republic of Ireland and increasingly in parts of mainland Europe. However, little is known about the involvement of badgers in areas on the spatial edge of the cattle epidemic, where increasing prevalence in cattle is seen. Here we report the findings of a study of found-dead (mainly road-killed) badgers in six counties on the edge of the English epidemic of bTB in cattle. The overall prevalence of Mycobacterium tuberculosis complex (MTC) infection detected in the study area was 51/610 (8.3%, 95% CI 6.4–11%) with the county-level prevalence ranging from 15 to 4–5%. The MTC spoligotypes of recovered from badgers and cattle varied: in the northern part of the study area spoligotype SB0129 predominated in both cattle and badgers, but elsewhere there was a much wider range of spoligotypes found in badgers than in cattle, in which infection was mostly with the regional cattle spoligotype. The low prevalence of MTC in badgers in much of the study area, and, relative to in cattle, the lower density of sampling, make firm conclusions difficult to draw. However, with the exception of Cheshire (north-west of the study area), little evidence was found to link the expansion of the bTB epidemic in cattle in England to widespread badger infection.

AbstractMany academics ask ‘How can I use my research to influence policy?’. In this paper, we draw on our first-hand experience as social researchers for the British Government to advise how academics can create and communicate research with policymakers. Specifically, we describe methods of communicating research to policymakers in relation to research we undertook to listen to farmers about their priorities for a new agricultural policy for England following the exit of the UK from the European Union. The main purpose of this research was to ensure farmers’ voices were included in policy development and therefore communication of the research to policymakers was key. We reflect on the effectiveness of the communication methods we employed and summarise our learnings into four practical recommendations: (1) make research relevant to policymakers; (2) invest time to develop and maintain relationships with policymakers; (3) utilise ‘windows of opportunity’; and (4) adapt presentation and communication styles to the audience. We consider that employing these recommendations will help to improve how evidence is communicated between academia and government and therefore the influence of evidence in decision-making processes.