A refresher on how to engage in the policy-making process as scientists

By Ashish Avasthi

Have you ever blamed your government for a policy that you deem to be illogical? Did you know that YOU possess the power to change that?

So, read this article to figure out how you, as a scientist, can help your government make better policies that are backed by facts, evidence, and studies.

Recently, I attended a webinar organized as a part of the MCAA Around the World Webinar Series, where the speaker was Chloe Hill, who works at the interface of science and policy. She effectively translates and disseminates scientific evidence to policymakers, thereby facilitating activities that enable scientists and policymakers to exchange information. In this webinar, she shed light on how science policy works in the real world. I would like to share the information I gathered from the webinar as well as from reading more stuff about policymaking.

Before proceeding forward, it is imperative to know what scientific advice or science for policy is, just to be on the same page.

It is the process by which information is transferred from the scientific community to decision makers/policy makers with the intention to produce evidence informed policies.

Evidence-informed policies, as is clear by the name are the ones based on evidence and information while the process is known as evidence-informed policy-making. However back in the day, only scientific evidence was used to help make policy decisions.

Photo by Dessidre Fleming from Unsplash

There are three things that are to be kept in mind during the whole process:

• Intent to use best available advice used to help make policies/decisions
• It is imperative to remember that policymaking doesn’t only concern science but also other sectors such as people, economy, etc.
• One must not forget that while science is an important consideration for policymakers, it is not the sole driver for making decisions

Science for policy could easily be confused with policy for science. However, policy for science dictates how science is funded, conducted, and communicated, for example, research funding, division of funding amidst research areas, public funding contracts, education sector, and many more.

If one advocates for their research area by focusing on research funding or other things, it is a policy for science and not the other way around. It would be considered a bias or conflict of interest for science for policy.

Science advice or science for policy explicitly deals with using one’s area of expertise or knowledge to advise the policymakers. The most recent example of this could be found during the recent Covid pandemic where advice was considered from all expert virologists.

Photo from Annie Spratt on Unsplash

Moving to the important question:

What is the difference between “Science advice” and “Policy advice”?

Well, they are quite similar yet different. Policy advice refers to the options offered upon request by policy officers. This would be the time when you tell them how to solve a problem by providing them with policy options or recommendations. On the other hand, Science advice is where you only provide the data or technical information without contextualizing it. In other words, giving the best available information to policymakers without adding any further subtext.

So, how can scientists have an impact on policy?

I) The motivation itself

First and foremost, correctly understand what your motivation/goal is for wanting to make an impact. You can proceed once have figured out the answer to this question and hopefully, the answer is not too selfish.

1. Is the intention altruistic? This means the motivation to help guide effective and evidence-informed policy-making. It would be highly beneficial for the whole society if this is the case
2. Does the intention have some vested interest? This would refer to promoting policies because it would increase the impact of your research and expertise. This could be one way of creating an impact, albeit indirect, in the field of research as every researcher dreams of making a real impact through their research
3. You want to expand your network and gain personal opportunities? This would refer to gaining traction from peers, answering questions, and attending policy related events. If this is what your goal is be selective in choosing who you engage with
4. Is the goal to communicate your research and spread the word? If this is the force that drives you, communicate your research yourself in order to avoid misinterpretation/misuse of your work
5. Is your motivation something else? Your motivation isn’t listed here? As long as you have one, it is okay! #JustGoForIt

II) Engagement does matter

It is crucial to be certain of the way you would like to interact and make your voice heard, especially at the beginning of your journey

1. Comprehension of the policy landscape — Make sure to understand the system including its hierarchy and working
2. What level of government would you like to reach — local, national, EU, or worldwide? Considering the lack of time and resources with researchers, it would help if one made a choice
3. What policy areas are relevant to your research — make a list and narrow it down
4. Know your strengths and competencies — What do you bring to the table and what can you offer?
5. What type of research is relevant for you — list down whatever you think your research impacts and narrow it down

III) Method of engagement is equally important

Engagement bears quite some importance so be sure to know what your role is and be clear about it.

1. Pure scientist — one does not engage in any way outside of research and academia. It seems too good to be true and therefore almost non-existent and is classified as a purist
2. Science arbiter — one provides answers to empirical questions without any foreshadowing of what policymakers should do with this information. It seems like an ideal position, however, it’s difficult as well since it is not easy to restrict oneself to conceptualize information and respond to only what you are asked without any personal bias
3. Issue advocate — one highlights the preference for a particular policy or outcome among several in order to reduce the scope of policy options
4. Honest broker — one presents relevant evidence about a range of policy decisions and their potential consequences without advocating for one policy choice over others. It is as difficult as it sounds therefore usually a team or a group of scientists is used
5. Stealth issue advocacy — the role of this one is a bit more complicated since this one gives the perception of swimming without getting wet. In this case, one is not clear about their role and advocates for science but with some political agenda. These people generally tend to make policymakers lose interest and trust in scientists

IV) Finding the right opportunity to engage

Scientific evidence can be used in many ways throughout the policy-making process but it’s not as easy as it may seem to be.

1. Leader — One could help define the issues that policy acts upon
2. Be the guide — Provide explanations of complex systems that allow policymakers to see the unintended consequences of policies
3. Problem solver — Find solutions to specific issues during a policy’s implementation
4. Evaluator — Evaluate the impact and effect of a policy
5. First responder — Help policymakers respond to a crisis

V) Transferring the information from scientific community to policymakers

Everybody can’t have the same level of knowledge about a particular thing. Hence, there are different steps involved throughout the process:

1. Setting the Agenda — find an issue that needs to be changed, one can use foresight tools such as Horizon scanning
2. Formulation — ask all the questions during this part such as costs involved, good it does, etc
3. Adoption — decide on the fate of the proposal — scientists can ask for changes if the policy is it’s in infancy and allow for the proposal to be accepted, amended and accepted, or rejected
4. Implementation — the member states decide how are they going to reach that target
5. Evaluation — this part is done through consultation, to check efficiency or to add more information
6. Support and maintenance — this is based on feedback received

VI) Communication of scientific knowledge

Evidence-based policy is a great initiative but it needs to be well explained so that it is understood easily by everyone.

This communication involves -

1. Know your audience — Knowing your audience helps frame your message suitably
2. Efficient communication — Ensure that your communication is concise, focused on a key issue and jargon-free
3. Engage with multiple stakeholders — Involvement of a wide range of stakeholders such as industries adds weight to your advice
4. Correct representation — Make sure you are representing the scientific evidence rather than yourself or all your research
5. Make it appealing— Adding emotions, stories, and examples can make communication more engaging

VII) Creation of diverse scientific communities

In today’s era, the policymaking landscape has changed. While preparing policies or drafting scientific briefs for policies, co-creation and dialogue engagement has become quintessential. If the expectations are correctly aligned, then frustrations can be minimized. Moreover, this constructive dialogue between scientists and policymakers is vital to ensure that irrelevant information is minimized. The creation of diverse scientific communities could be a solution. There are several advantages to it –

1. Interdisciplinarity — Creates a wider pool of knowledge to draw from to address the problems
2. Converging approach — Enables information from a wide range of areas to be synthesized through which areas of consensus can be found
3. Resourcefulness — No one person can have all the knowledge. Having more brainpower reduces duplication and avoids blind spots
4. Pragmatic — Reduces the amount of time needed to keep track of policy news and connect with individual policymakers

However, doing this requires sharing strategic objectives, strong management, and user-friendly digital environments to exchange and host meetings.

It becomes crucial to be willing to compromise and shed your ego if you want to work in policymaking

Obviously, there is no one size fits all and it would be highly dependent on what part of the world you find yourself in. For instance, the EU has multiple processes involved both institutionalized and non-institutionalized. One is mandated to see the country for which they will be trying to advise or change the policy.

Key takeaways:

i) Think about policy areas that are relevant to your research

ii) Decide what level you’d like to engage on — EU, local, etc

iii) Thing about potential policy implications at the beginning of your research projects

iv) Connect with others who are already engaging in the science-policy interface

v) Strengthen and expand your existing scientific community

vi) Attend policy events that are relevant to your research

vii) If the information is low — then you have to work with the best available evidence

• You can watch the full recording of the event on YouTube.
• The Honest broker by Roger A. Pielke Jr.
• The Honest broker by Roger A. Pielke Jr.
• European Science Diplomacy Online Course
• Science for policy
• Joint Research Committee (JRC)
• EGU Blog by Chloe Hill
• If you are an MCAA member, you can also join the policy-making workgroup

About the author:

Ashish Avasthi is a Marie Sklodowska-Curie early-stage researcher currently pursuing his Ph.D. at BIONAND, University of Malaga, Spain. His research is currently focused on molecular targeting of glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) for early diagnosis and treatment using surface-functionalized nanoparticles. He likes to distribute his time among his varied interests of science, sports as well as writing.