Keeping science’s seat at the decision-making table
The world is awash in new media and vast amounts of information of variable quality. The public’s trust in authorities, including scientists, and the rise of “post-truth” politics can threaten the use of evidence to inform decision-making. This new landscape for science creates new challenges for government policy-makers who are required to make informed decisions about complex scientific issues. This task requires the decision-maker to successfully identify strong evidence from misleading misinformation, weigh sometimes conflicting issues, and make choices about emotionally charged topics in the public sphere. However, policy-makers in government do not necessarily have scientific training, which can add difficulties in finding robust scientific evidence from the sea of information.
Recently, the Canadian government has taken steps to improve the use of evidence in informing decisions in Canada. For example, Canada has recently hired a new Chief Science Advisor (CSA) who will evaluate scientific evidence, advise government policy-makers, and help make recommendations on supporting science and evidence-informed decisions in the public sector. Yet, effectively using evidence to inform multifaceted decisions in a world of disinformation can be a challenge for any individual to address on their own. The CSA cannot be an expert on all scientific matters, nor can the advisor be in multiple places at once. To ensure the success of the CSA, a support network needs to exist across government.
In our paper, we propose a model of Departmental Science Advisors, based on a United Kingdom model, that would complement and support the new Chief Science Advisor. In our model, Departmental Chief Science Advisors (DCSAs) would provide nonpartisan advice to ministers and senior civil servants, critically evaluate scientific research in their host department, and provide outreach for the department’s science as a public-facing government representative. We outline how the DCSAs could be integrated into their departments and illustrate their potential benefits to the policy-making process and the scientific community. Some of these benefits include new opportunities for early-career researchers to engage in the policy-making process, providing department specific expertise and improving linkages across science-based departments.
Read the full paper — Keeping science’s seat at the decision making table: Mechanisms to motivate policy makers to keep using scientific information in the age of disinformation by Kimberly D. Girling and Justin N. Marleau on the FACETS website.
