Science for Policy

Should scientists get involved in public campaigning, lobbying or advocating for causes close to their heart — or close to their research? If so, what are the responsibilities of scientists and their employing institutions — and what are the potential pitfalls? In this episode, Toby Wardman takes a deep dive into these questions with Professor Eric Guilyardi, a member of the ethics committee of the French national centre for scientific research, and the co-author of its opinion on public advocacy by scientists.

We often shine the spotlight on the advisors whose high-profile work comes at the end of the science advice process, and on the academics whose research it's based on. But there is a third important actor in this process, often working informally, sometimes moving in the shadows – the faceless bureaucrat or administrator. Alessandro Allegra dedicated his PhD studies to analysing the role of science advice secretariats, what they do, and how formal that role should be. And he spills the beans to Toby Wardman in this episode.

People are forever saying that science advice should not just be about the natural sciences, but also about the social sciences, humanities and arts. And yet lumping those three categories together conceals a host of interesting complications. The contribution of the social sciences and humanities to policymaking is relatively easy to conceptualise, even if sometimes challenging in execution. But the arts? How can artists contribute to research, add to scientific evidence, or have an impact on scientific advice to policy? Or is the role of art limited to public engagement? In this episode, two working physicists who are also artists, Clara Roca-Sastre and Andrea Heilrath, explore this topic in dialogue with Toby Wardman, our own science communicator who is also an artist. Enjoy!

Karen Yeung is an interdisciplinary professor at the University of Birmingham, specialising in AI. In this episode, she discusses with Toby Wardman the uses of AI in evidence-based policymaking, and the uses of evidence in AI policymaking.

Mikel Landabaso, Director for Fair and Sustainable Economy in the European Commission's Joint Research Centre, knows a fair few things about the role of science and technology innovation in informing regional development policy and promoting regeneration. In this episode, he talks to Toby Wardman about how it works, how his advice has been taken, and the strategies to adopt when policymakers or stakeholders aren't able to appreciate it on its own terms.

How do you bring scientists and policymakers together to generate creative solutions to thorny problems? How can you engineer a conversation on controversial issues that builds trust between allies rather than alienating opponents? And what's the secret to overcoming cynicism about either the process or the outcome?   With a background in history, business and journalism, Maggie Dugan has wisdom to share on all these questions and more!

The Finnish Academy of Science and Letters has been active in the science-for-policy space in Finland for decades, including in recent years playing a leading role in setting up an important science advice mechanism for the Finnish government. Now it has also published a comprehensive handbook for researchers, with advice and practical exercises to help guide them in their first steps in policy engagement. In this episode, Linda Lammensalo talks to Toby Wardman about what's in the handbook and why. Resources mentioned in this episode Finnish academy handbook: https://acadsci.fi/en/publications/a-new-handbook-provides-tools-for-researchers-in-the-science-policy-interface/ Science Europe guidance: https://www.scienceeurope.org/our-resources/guidance-science-for-policy/ 

What does our most advanced AI, trained on the sum total of all human knowledge, have to say about the challenges of the science-policy interface? And can it tell a good joke? (Hint: The answer to that one is no.)

Welcome to our 100th episode! This one comes to you complete with a live audience at the University of Helsinki, kindly hosted by the SRI Congress 2024. Debating questions Warm-up debates: (1) We should get rid of daylight saving time. (2) How would a dog wear trousers? Hind legs only, or all four legs on the bottom half of its body? (3) In which order do you put on socks and shoes? Sock sock shoe shoe, or sock shoe sock shoe?   Substantive debates: (1) Science advice organisations should welcome researchers who have connections to industry or campaign groups. (2) As a science advisor, I'm OK with my research being used by everyone in the policymaking process. (3) As a science advisor, it's OK to have private conversations with a policymaker. (4) As a science advisor, I should present only the evidence. Interpreting that evidence is the policymaker's job. (5) It's my duty as a scientist to lobby for changes in society, based on the evidence as I see it. (6) If a policymaker wants a simple answer from science, I should give them one. (7) When there isn't enough data for a robust evidence-based answer, I should give my best guess. (8) When scientists disagree on a controversial issue, I should present my own view on what the evidence says. (9) If the politicians make a decision which really goes against my advice, it's my duty to speak out publicly against it. (10) As a science advisor, I should try to present different stakeholder positions, such as those of affected communities.   Resources mentioned in this episode SRI Congress 2024: https://sricongress.org/home/about-sri2024/ The noble vibraslap, queen of percussion instruments: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vibraslap Spotify playlist featuring the vibraslap: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/3pXPF32AkTNcRfNswxnaWq?si=bdb62b8d74dd4151 

There are many different ways to make policies, and many different ways for science and evidence to impact on those policies. In western liberal democracies, we tend to focus on our specific, forgetting that across the world and across history our specific way of doing things is not the only way.   Claudia Chwalisz, from the think-tank DemocracyNext, has spent a lot of time thinking about alternative ways to govern our societies, especially when it comes to dealing with challenges that are scientifically or morally complex. In this episode, she talks to Toby Wardman about how alternative decision-making processes could work, and whether they would strengthen or change the roles of science, evidence and expertise in deliberation.   Resources mentioned in this episode DemocracyNext: https://www.demnext.org/ 

In recent months, there's been a small explosion of guidelines and handbooks on how to do science advice. In today's episode, Toby Wardman takes a deep dive into Science Europe's recent guidance for research-funding and research-performing organisations, in conversation with their author, Nicola Dotti.

This is probably the last podcast in the world to get round to talking about how AI is changing the world -- but we wanted to wait until we had the right people in the room to talk specifically about AI in relation to science, policy, and science-for-policy. If you like this conversation with Professor Andrea Rizzoli and Manuel Kugler -- and you will like it! -- stay tuned in the coming months, because we've got more AI-themed episodes up our sleeves.

It's sometimes easy to forget that even the most well-designed science advice institution, and even the most persuasive advisor, are still operating as part of a broad ecosystem in which both policymakers and the general public are exposed to vast quantities of ostensibly factual information of varying quality, much of it mediated through algorithms. In this episode, Caitlin Chin-Rothmann from the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington DC talks us through this broader context and how science advisors can adapt to it.

Why does evidence sometimes land and sometimes not? Why do some policies fail even though the evidence suggests they should succeed?  And what can we do about it? Saying "it's all about the context" is easy, but what does this actually mean? And more importantly, how can we make that into a useful insight in advance, rather than just a post-hoc justification for things not working out? Vanesa Weyrauch and Leandro Echt have looked into this question in some detail, and their organisation, Purpose & Ideas, created a framework to tackle exactly these questions. In this episode, they discuss with Toby Wardman of the SAM not just why context matters, but what that actually means and what we can do about it.   Resources mentioned in this episode Context Matters framework: https://www.purposeandideas.org/post/context-matters-but-are-we-prepared-to-build-on-this 

Politicians don't really have a great understanding of the citizens they serve, according to Michael Bang Petersen. In place of evidence from decades of psychological research, they tend to substitute their own instincts and common sense, together with more or less apposite fragments of behavioural science and economics. Nowhere was this more evident than during the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, when opportunities to build trust and communicate science were squandered. Tune in and settle down for an intriguing tour of how things ought to be done.

When countries set themselves ambitious targets such as the UN sustainable development goals, then realise they don't have the evidence sources they need to monitor progress towards those targets, how do they square the circle? In some cases, it's with so-called 'citizen science', in which non-professional scientists gather and evaluate data — often on a big scale — to fill the gaps.   Dr Dilek Fraisl is an expert in using citizen science to address sustainability challenges. In conversation with Toby Wardman, she discusses both the value of using crowdsourced data, and the challenges that arise when presenting it to policymakers.

How do scientific models inform policymakers? How can they keep countries honest in international climate negotiations? When is uncertainty not so much of a problem? And how much does it matter if policymakers don't instantly grasp the ins and outs of a model which takes six months for scientists to learn? Join the SAM's Toby Wardman on a deep dive into what happens when scientific models meet international politics.

Climate change negotiators preparing for UN summits must sift through a truly intimidating quantity of scientific material to familiarise themselves with the latest evidence. That's why Future Earth, along with the Earth League and the World Climate Research Programme, has delivered its pithy 'Ten New Insights on Climate Change' every year since 2017. But what is the process behind these reports? How are the insights chosen, by whom, and why? And what is it about this model of science advice that also made it attractive to the European Commission when it wanted to figure out which climate and biodiversity research to fund in the future? Daniel Ospina and Judit Ungvári talk to Toby Wardman of the SAM about the ins and outs of science advice at the highest level of global decision-making.   Resources mentioned in this episode 10 new climate insights: https://10insightsclimate.science/ 

Dr Patricia Gruber is the science and technology advisor to Antony Blinken, President Biden's secretary of state. In a wide-ranging conversation with Toby Wardman from the SAM, she discusses how she got her job, what it's like, and what she can and can't do. She also lays out the US's approach to international science diplomacy, including the wisdom (or folly) or withholding scientific collaboration as a diplomatic measure.

International development is a major political priority in many countries, with billion-dollar budgets. But, as recently as 2006, the influential Center for Global Development published a damning report entitled 'When will we ever learn?', essentially arguing that the entire policy area had been built on a foundation of guesswork and good intentions.   In the two decades since then, a huge amount of work has been done to bring rigorous evidence to this complex and often values-laden political area. For the Science for Policy podcast, Marie Gaarder and Thomas Kelly from the International Initiative for Impact Evaluation cover all the bases: the evidence we have and the evidence we need, how it should be used, and what's still getting in the way. Resources mentioned in this episode Report 'When will we ever learn?': https://www.cgdev.org/publication/when-will-we-ever-learn-improving-lives-through-impact-evaluation 

Dr Maja Fjaestad, an academic with an engineering background, had grand plans when she was appointed Swedish state secretary for health. Unfortunately, this was in 2019, and less than a year later her job was completely transformed by the Covid outbreak.   In this wide-ranging interview with Toby Wardman, Dr Fjaestad talks about what it was like being in the job during Covid, how well the science-policy interface was functioning in Sweden at the time, and the links between Swedish Covid response, scientific evidence and public communication.

In this special episode of the podcast recorded at a live event in 2023, four experts discuss the role of science advice in emergency situations: what challenges do science advisors face, and what opportunities should they seize? With Tina Comes, professor at Technical University Delft; Barbara Prainsack, professor at the University of Vienna and chair of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies; Maarja Kruusmaa, professor at Tallinn University and member of the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors to the European Commission; and Daniela di Bucci, geologist and advisor to the Italian government.

In a scientific field as complex and multifaceted as climate modelling, how do you communicate the realities of concrete impacts to stakeholders and policymakers? Two IPCC scientists, Bart van den Hurk and Jana Sillmann, are working on so-called 'storylines' techniques, which generate high-resolution, interdisciplinary stories to help decision-makers in all fields assess their own readiness for climate-related changes. Resources mentioned in this episode https://climatestorylines.eu/ 

How diverse are the people who work on scientific advice -- and why does this matter? Should we be involving more young people as experts, and are there any trade-offs in doing so? What impact might changes in academic culture more broadly have on the quality and availability of evidence for policy? Professor Moniek Tromp, a founding member of the Young Academies Science Advice Structure and a member of the COARA coalition on improving research assessment, reflects on what's working well and why the rest is still so difficult.

Beyond the world of institutional design and formalised competences that tend to be the focus of science-for-policy scholarship, there are many less structured interfaces between the worlds of research and policymaking. One such well-established interface is the Mercator science-policy fellowship, run by three German universities and headed by Tome Sandevski. In this episode, Toby Wardman of the SAM talks to Tome and his colleague Michèle Knodt, who is currently taking part in the scheme.

Drawing on their broad portfolio of exciting, sci-fi-sounding research areas, Tim Marler and Sana Zakaria from RAND Corporation talk in depth about how the latest scientific evidence on AI and gene-editing can best be communicated to policymakers nationally and globally. What are the hot topics? What decisions do policymakers face right now? Where can different kinds of scientific evidence help to inform those decisions, and where are policymakers on their own? Resources mentioned in this episode RAND Corporation report on machine learning and gene editing: https://www.rand.org/randeurope/research/projects/ai-at-the-helm-of-a-species-evolution.html 

The Philippines is remarkably exposed to natural disasters, from earthquakes to typhoons to volcanic eruptions. Dr Glenn Fernandez, a disaster risk management expert, started his science advice career as a masters student and has continued ever since, helping cities and rural municipalities to prepare for and respond to emergencies. In this episode, he shares his experiences and insights with Toby Wardman from the SAM.

Veera Mitzner is the organiser of the Sustainability Research and Innovation Congress, a major annual event which brings together thousands of researchers, stakeholders and, yes, policymakers. But how do events like this fit into the broader evidence-for-policy landscape?

Greece does not have a long tradition of institutionalised science advisory mechanisms, but after dealing relatively well with Covid, the situation is starting to change. Professor Stella Ladi, an expert on evidence-informed policymaking at home and internationally, talks to Toby Wardman about the past, present and future of science advice in Greece.   Professor Ladi has been promoted since this conversation was recorded! Hence she is referred to as 'Dr Ladi' at the start of the episode.

The EU climate law created a new institution, the European Scientific Advisory Board on Climate Change, which started work just this year and targets the European Commission, Parliament and Council. Its chair, Professor Ottmar Edenhofer, took time out of his busy schedule to share with us what it's like setting up a new science advice body and how happy he is with their first significant report. Resources mentioned in this episode https://climate-advisory-board.europa.eu/ 

Elections are not the only way to power democratic decision-making. A system of government by random selection of citizens, or 'sortition', has been around since at least ancient Athens and, as Hugh Pope explains, has never quite disappeared. But if we adopt such a radically different way of making policy, what are the implications of science for policy? Do experts take on different roles, and how can citizen-politicians acquire the skills they need to make judgement calls on scientifically complex issues? Resources mentioned in this episode Maurice Pope, 'The Keys to Democracy: Sortition as a new model for citizen power'. http://books.imprint.co.uk/book/?gcoi=71157100410200 

What do science advisors have to offer in conflict situations? Can evidence and expertise ever cut through political polarisation and contribute to finding new forms of compromise? What kinds of advisors do we need, and what kinds of advice? Should they be strictly neutral, or is plurality and openness more useful? Do politicians really want scientific evidence, and what if it puts pressure on their longstanding political positions?   Our guest today, Marc Sanjaume i Calvet, is an expert on the Catalan-Spanish independence debate as well as democracy, federalism and secession more generally. The president of Catalonia appointed him as the coordinator of an expert group working towards a so-called 'clarity agreement' for the Catalan region.

Welcome to the Arctic, where science-for-policy and policy-for-science collide in increasingly complicated ways. You can't make climate-change policy anywhere in the world without scientific evidence we get from the Arctic — but at the same time, being able to get that evidence depends on a delicate balance of policies and geopolitical interests that have made collaborative research between Europe, North America and Russia possible since before the Cold War. But then you might have heard that Russia has invaded Ukraine, and suddenly the whole institution is under threat. Norwegian experts Ole Øvretveit and Eystein Jansen explain what's going on, and what we might be able to do about it.

Most of Europe's colossal Horizon research funding programme is laser-focused on strategic objectives set by policymakers. But one Horizon-funded institution, the European Research Council, breaks the mould: its grants are awarded on the basis of excellence alone, and as Dr Eleni Zika explains, they are proud to deliberately ignore questions such as the usefulness of science to policy or society.   Why, then, has the ERC recently set up its own 'feedback to policy' unit, which would seem to go against its stated mission? Toby Wardman of SAPEA investigates.

Politicians are humans, and humans do not always reason syllogistically from premises to conclusions. The problem is amplified when political decisions have to be made fast, under conditions of uncertainty, with either not enough information or far too much. That's where heuristics come in -- and Professor Barbara Vis is here to help us understand when they are used, what their impacts can be, and how we should take that into account when delivering science advice.

When Slovenia rolled out its national diabetes plan, they had the evidence, they had the funding, they had the centres, they had the doctors and nurses... but people didn't show up.   Simply having the right information is not enough to build an effective policy. You can't just factor out the complexities — you need to factor them in.   Heather Rogers and Jelka Zaletel tell us more about the intriguing topic of implementation science. Podcast community Join our listener community, meet other listeners and discuss science-for-policy topics! https://join.slack.com/t/scienceforpol-iju8175/shared_invite/zt-1q94fmb6r-oG3q8QKf8cxXnKMNCkR77A 

How might the future of science advice look at the global level? Will the establishment of a UN Group of Friends on Science for Action be the catalyst that elevates science advice to the highest levels of multilateral decision-making, and how will this complement the Secretary-General's renewed scientific advisory board? And what should the role of the international science community be? In this episode, Dr Salvatore Aricò, chief executive of the International Science Council, shares his experience and his vision with Toby Wardman, drawing on practical examples to illustrate how such science advice mechanisms work in practice. We also discuss the challenges and opportunities for scientists and the ISC that can help translate science into action, policy-relevant advice. Resources mentioned in this episode International Science Council: https://council.science/ Join our listener community, meet other listeners and discuss science-for-policy topics! https://join.slack.com/t/scienceforpol-iju8175/shared_invite/zt-1q94fmb6r-oG3q8QKf8cxXnKMNCkR77A

The Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy is the cherry on top of an intricate and diverse ecosystem that provides for the science and evidence needs of policymakers in the Netherlands. It has a unique mandate: to look beyond the daily cut and thrust of politics, to challenge both government and parliament to think about important strategic issues that stretch into the future. Oh, and it reports directly to the prime minister.   Too good to be true? You might well think so. But here's its secretary, Frans Brom, to explain why you're wrong.   Listener community Join our listener community, meet other listeners and discuss science-for-policy topics! https://join.slack.com/t/scienceforpol-iju8175/shared_invite/zt-1q94fmb6r-oG3q8QKf8cxXnKMNCkR77A  Resources mentioned in this episode Netherlands Scientific Council for Government Policy

In this episode, Bárbara Willaarts and Thomas Schinko from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis explain why transdisciplinarity means more than just collaborating with other areas of science, and why co-creation means more than just working with policymakers to understand their needs... and why both are needed to give really good quality policy advice.

In this bonus episode shared from the limited-run podcast The Trust Race, Shane Bergin discusses public and political trust in science, using the advice on mask-wearing during the Covid-19 pandemic as an example. To listen to other episodes from The Trust Race, visit https://open.spotify.com/show/6jQ59Bxy7vGRecSzinxuaj. 'The Trust Race' has received funding from the EU's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 870883. The information and opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the European Commission.

Education is an interesting case study for the science-policy interface. It combines a complex, multi-stakeholder ecosystem, a range of different academic approaches, and very high political salience. Maybe that's why John O'Connor, a senior policymaker in the Qualifications and Quality Assurance Authority of Ireland, made it the subject of his PhD. He's here to tell us what makes science advice effective in education — and what makes it fail.   With a bonus whirlwind tour of the entire science-policy ecosystem in Ireland!

Ninety-nine brave adventurers have gone before. Who shall have the privilege of being the one hundredth guest on the Science for Policy podcast? And will they survive the ordeal? Join our brand new podcast community -- discuss what you've heard, ask questions to guests and and meet fellow listeners! Sign up here: https://join.slack.com/t/scienceforpol-iju8175/shared_invite/zt-1q94fmb6r-oG3q8QKf8cxXnKMNCkR77A 

Is financial advice science advice? How independent can a financial advisor be? Did the world of economic policy advisors have their epiphany in 2008 in the same way that other sciences did in 2020? If anyone can answer these questions, it's Professor Jan-Pieter Krahnen!

In a complex science-for-policy ecosystem, what role is filled by the so-called 'knowledge-brokering organisation'? It's not a scientific organisation, nor a science advisor, nor a think-tank, nor a policymaker. Yet these organisations abound and they can be highly influential — as Professor James Downe and Dr Eleanor MacKillop argue.   In this episode, these two experts on this under-appreciated corner of the policymaking world explain to Toby Wardman the roles, challenges and strategies that characterise the work of knowledge-brokering organisations around the world.

What's that misshapen, lumbering form looming from the shadows? Why, it's the old linear model of science advice, already killed a thousand times over, but somehow still living -- and it's coming for YOU.   Luckily, we have Professor Carina Keskitalo to hammer (another) stake into the heart of this monstrosity, with a tour-de-force about why you can't just tell your social scientists to shut up and do stakeholder engagement. Shoulder your crossbow, clutch your crucifix and enjoy!   Resources mentioned in this episode The social aspects of environmental and climate change. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-191872  Help us choose a channel for our listeners' community: https://bit.ly/3XE8LRY 

When science advisors are employed by governments, how do they reconcile the competing needs to accurately convey the science, while ensuring it can be of maximum use in the current political context? Dr Christiane Gerblinger has one answer: her research suggests that advisors adopt strategies to make themselves deliberately ignorable.   Resources mentioned in this episode How Government Experts Self-Sabotage: The language of the rebuffed. https://press.anu.edu.au/publications/how-government-experts-self-sabotage 

So you want to be a science advisor? The bad news: there aren't really any books, powerpoint presentations or training courses that can teach you the skills you need. The good news: doctoral researcher Noam Obermeister has found out everything he can about the learning journeys of scientists who work with policymakers, both what they learn and how. And he might even be able to tell you if you will sink or swim.   Resources mentioned in this episode Twitter thread on science advisors' learning journeys: https://twitter.com/NObermeister/status/1584932780840194048 

On this podcast, and in the world of science advice studies generally, we spend a lot of time discussing the science-policy interface and what should exist on the 'science' side of it in order to most effectively support policymaking. But Professor Sir Geoff Mulgan asks a different question: what happens on the other side of the interface, when policymakers are landed with a vast array of knowledge, theory and opinion, and have to somehow construct from that — and their own political and economic realities — an intelligible way forward.

We live in an age of crisis — and the crises that we face are more numerous, more widespread and more overlapping than ever before. In the chaos of high-pressure, life-and-death policymaking, politicians could benefit not just from scientific advice but also from the input of ethicists. That's where Barbara Prainsack, chair of the European Group on Ethics and New Technologies, comes into the picture.   Resources mentioned in this episode Statement on values in times of crisis: https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/document/1690e112-9826-4ede-811b-fad63167b9d9_en (available from 22 November) Evidence review report and Scientific opinion on strategic crisis management in the EU: https://www.sapea.info/crisis/ (available from 22 November)

Evidence is not the exclusive province of science advisors and science advice institutions. And especially in policy areas where those institutions are weak or absent, other forces rush to fill the vacuum: stakeholders, lobbyists, interest groups.   In this epsiode, Dr Rebecca Natow talks to Toby Wardman about federal education policy in the US, a domain that employs a 'negotiated rulemaking' methodology to try to find consensus among many stakeholders — even though scientific input is also legally mandated. The result is a swirling, politically-infused debate around the meaning of both quantitative and qualitative evidence.   Resources mentioned in this episode Reexamining the federal role in higher education https://www.tcpress.com/reexamining-the-federal-role-in-higher-education-9780807766767  Higher education rulemaking: the politics of creating regulatory policy https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/11563/higher-education-rulemaking 

Marie Skłowdowska-Curie Fellowships, administered by the European Union, are some of the world's most prestigious academic fellowships, supporting researchers from all disciplines and at all stages of their careers. But alongside the core programmes are a growing number of activities designed to help researchers to interact with policymakers, from both the MSCA programme and the Alumni Association that has grown up around it. In this episode, Marija Mitic and Jaishree Subrahmaniam discuss their science-for-policy work and the challenges faced by early-career researchers.