Background: The purpose of this research is to understand how science helped facilitate smoke-free conditions, and then use this understanding to inform action in other tobacco control areas.

Method: Consultations with global advocate's and researcher's networks, plus analysis of international survey data.

Results: Alignment with political-cultural systems was crtitical: In US, successful advocacy was "bottom up"; most activity originated at local level. In "Napoleonic" countries (e.g. France, Italy), or countries like Ireland and NZ (small with strong central government) successful action was "top down", but consultative. In Australia, the level was in between, with States the focus. Framing also varied, from protecting non-smokers (e.g. California), to protecting workers using OH&S infrastructure (e.g. Australia).

The research-practice relationship was reciprocal. Advocacy, supported by epidemiology (e.g. indicating SHS harms to children) enabled research that confirmed assumptions about SHS (e.g. via dose-response studies), extra SHS harms (e.g. heart disease), and public support for smoke-free initiatives (via social research) which, in turn, reinforced existing advocacy/policy thrusts, producing a virtuous cycle.

Conclusions: Science refined our understanding, and policy outcomes then provided opportunities to further refine this understanding. Models often assume success reflects "best practice", but success reflects many variables, some of which (like interaction between political-cultural alignment and framing) belie the idea of one best practice.

Implications: Models of science-advocacy/policy relationships need rethinking, and we are pursuing a multi-party dialogue to advance this agenda. Our approach will now be applied to the debate between harm reduction and harm avoidance advocates.