SES science emphasises the dynamic
Proponents identify the strengths of collaboration as: producing more informed, creative, and adaptive solutions; building individual and social capacity; achieving consensus, thereby avoiding costly disputes; supporting processes for shaping and implementing regulatory policy; and improving social and environmental outcomes (Susskind et al., 2012). Critics argue that GM6001 collaboration: delegitimizes legal institutions for resolving conflict; co-opts environmental advocates; dis-empowers national and international conservation interests; impedes recognition of the rights of Aboriginal peoples; entrenches socio-economic marginalisation, and produces lowest common denominator solutions (McKinney and Field, 2008 and von der Porten and de Loe, 2013). Innes and Booher (2010) concluded from their multi-decadal study that the overall impact of effective collaboration is to produce long-term social and institutional learning that promotes systemic adaptation. Linkages with social-ecological systems (SES) science offer pathways to extend pituitary gland understanding by also focusing attention on environmental considerations (Wilkinson, 2012).