Science for Policy: Recent Episodes
SAPEA
How far should we rely on science to make political decisions? What makes a good science advisor — or a good science advice system? What do we do when the evidence is incomplete or controversial? What happens when science advice goes wrong and how can we fix it?
We explore these questions, and many more, in conversation with the researchers, policymakers and communicators who make science advice happen around the world.
The Science for Policy podcast is produced by SAPEA, part of the European Commission’s Scientific Advice Mechanism. We are a consortium of more than a hundred European academies, funded by the EU’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant number 737432. The many and varied opinions expressed on this podcast are those of the guests themselves. They do not necessarily represent the views of SAPEA or the European Commission.
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 communityJoin 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 communityJoin 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.
When a giant comet is hurtling towards Earth... when US president Orlean is more concerned about her approval ratings than preventing the extermination of all life... when the policy advice of America's greatest scientific minds is falling on deaf ears... when there is panic on the streets and the world's best response is capitalist greed... Who you gonna call? The world may be 99.7% doomed, but at least we have Chloe Hill on the line to point out what went wrong and how the science advisors could have made a difference. Resources mentioned in this episode * Don't Look Up (Netflix): https://www.netflix.com/title/81252357 * EGU blog post: https://blogs.egu.eu/geolog/2022/02/04/geopolicy-dont-look-up-could-better-science-advice-have-saved-the-planet/ * JRC report on values and identities: https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/projects-activities/values-identities-policymakers-guide_en * Episode on JRC competence framework: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgggHbVuEDA
The emergence of English as the dominant international language of science has some significant downsides. One is the impact this has on science advice, where non-English-speaking countries risk finding themselves behind the curve in terms of both scholarship and practical applications. As part of his presidency of the International Network for Governmental Science Advice, Professor Rémi Quirion of Québec has made it his mission to broaden our linguistic outlook. In this joint episode co-published with INGSA, he talks to Toby Wardman of SAPEA about the role of global networks in reaching not only national governments, but also regions, cities, teachers and students across the world. Resources mentioned in this episode * INGSA: https://ingsa.org/ * Conversation with Leonie Tanczer: https://sapea.info/podcasts/leonie-tanczer-maria-jarquin-natasha-boyd/
From Brussels to Warsaw, Professor Janusz Bujnicki is helping to shape the future of scientific advice. In this episode, he compares his experiences advising the European Commission with current efforts to develop more high-level science advice mechanisms in his home country of Poland. With Toby Wardman of SAPEA, he discusses the value of transparency versus discretion, the distinction between policy-for-science and science-for-policy, and how to make mistakes gracefully as part of the learning process.
Solly Zuckerman was the first chief scientific advisor to the UK government, a post he himself defined, and arguably one of the first to hold such a post in the world. His views, experiences and anecdotes from both the Second World War and the Cold War -- as described in a thousand or so pages of autobiography -- are so valuable that Mark Ferguson, today's guest, wishes he'd read them before he became chief scientific advisor to the Irish government.
Don't make the same mistake as Mark and leave your study of Zuckerman until your retirement. Listen to this episode today!
Resources mentioned in this episode * From Apes to Warlords: https://www.amazon.com/apes-warlords-Solly-Zuckerman/dp/0060148071 * Monkeys, Men and Missiles: https://www.amazon.com/Monkeys-men-missiles-autobiography-1946-88/dp/0002175010
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.
Foresight methodology helps science advisors check their blindspots, recognise their biases, and figure out the second- and third-order ripple effects of even the most innocuous of policy interventions. And Dr Lieve Van Woensel of the European Parliament, who talks to SAPEA's Toby Wardman in this episode, quite literally wrote the book on foresight.
Resources mentioned in this episode * A bias radar for responsible policymaking, by Lieve Van Woensel. https://lievevanwoensel.com/ * European Parliament Guidelines for foresight-based policy analysis: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EPRS_STU(2021)690031
In a very wide-ranging discussion, Dr Scott Bremer brings Toby Wardman up to speed on topics such as the inadequacy of the supply/demand dichotomy, the challenges of fitting the square peg of science into the round holes of real-world policy decisions, the relationship between scientific knowledge and other forms of knowing, and why he moonlights as a gardening therapist by the Norwegian fjords.
Resources mentioned in this episode * Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1462901104000620
While the natural sciences try to quantify and describe the natural world, the role of the social sciences is to understand people — including their many different attitudes, values and worldviews. This perspective is complex, but it is vital for policymakers, since policy directly engages with people. And, as Professors Peter Jackson and Marta Rivera Ferre argue, the way you frame a question can lead to radically different answers — even though different framings are equally valid. How does science advice help to meet these challenges?
Resources mentioned in this episode * Evidence Review Report and Scientific Opinion on a sustainable food system: https://www.sapea.info/food
We know that being a science advisor for policymaking requires a set of skills, knowledge and attitudes that are often very different from those that come with being a researcher. And the same is true for policymakers, who also need to adopt new ways of working and thinking to integrate the evidence base into their work. Wouldn't it be nice if some kindhearted individuals took it upon themselves to comb through the literature to identify, list and organise all these essential competences, and then shared them with the community in an easily accessible format?
Oh look! Here come Lene Topp and Florian Schwendinger of the European Commission's Joint Research Centre!
Resources mentioned in this episode * Competence frameworks: https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/projects-activities/competence-frameworks-policymakers-researchers_en
Nowhere is the tension between society-wide policy and individual choice as stark as in the field of public health. Can a committee of experts, informed by scientific evidence and in consultation with stakeholders, realistically make health decisions for a whole population? How might those decisions compare to the choices of individual patients and their physicians? Fresh from their work collecting evidence to inform screening programmes in the EU, Professors Rebecca Fitzgerald and Harry De Koning discuss the role of evidence in cancer screening policy and how it interfaces with clinical judgement and patient choice. Resources mentioned in this episode * Evidence review report on cancer screening: www.sapea.info/cancer
Could the implications of science advice, and the policies that follow from it, be decided by a citizen jury following a courtroom battle between scientific adversaries? Dr Zeynep Pamuk thinks so, and in this episode she tells Toby Wardman why.
Resources mentioned in this episode * Politics and expertise: How to use science in a democratic society: https://press.princeton.edu/books/ebook/9780691218946/politics-and-expertise * Arthur Kantrowicz on science courts: https://www.jstor.org/stable/29761595
Some of our discussions on this podcast can veer towards the abstract and philosophical. Not today! Migration policy is an area where high-minded principles drive headlong into authentic realpolitik — an area where science has lots to offer, but how much of it is actually listened to, never mind implemented, is a whole different question. Two experts on migration policy, Professor Jakub Bijak and Dr Daniela Vono, debate with Toby Wardman the pros and cons of working in such a contentious area.
We should be careful what we wish for. The Covid-19 pandemic ushered in a new era of public prominence for science advice, and the emergence of a new breed of 'celebrity' advisor whose face was recognisable from our TVs, newspapers and bedspreads. But in the modern world, public prominence has a dark side too. Science journalist Bianca Nogrady has researched the increasing issue of abuse and threats directed at science advisors. In this episode, she outlines what's going on, what causes it, and how we might try to tackle it. Resources mentioned in this episode * Bianca Nogrady: https://biancanogrady.com/
Professor Ortwin Renn is one of Europe's leading academic authorities on scientific advice, complexity and risk. In this wide-ranging conversation on the multiple roles played by science advisors, he discusses the limits of science as a source of knowledge, the challenge of complexity and wicked problems, why scoping is so hard, science as a catalyst, tangled values, good and bad faith motivations, and much more besides.
What joint challenges are faced by policy advisors and TV advisors? Why would a committed scientist make the switch from basic research to the entertainment industry? How serious is Star Trek about 'getting the science right'?
In this reissue of an episode from 2020, Dr Erin Macdonald discusses these questions with Toby Wardman of SAPEA. We also discuss the nature of gene transfer in tardigrades, whether it’s wise to step into the transporter, and how to solve the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in one easy step.
Just as politicians and policymakers need scientific advice to inform their decisions, so too do judges. But in the adversarial context of a courtroom, science and evidence can be even more hotly contested than in the public policy sphere. And in recent years, campaigners from several European countries have tried to bring the science of climate change before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, hoping to force national governments into dramatic policy changes.
In this episode, Professor Helen Keller — for nine years a judge on the Strasbourg bench — discusses these cases with Toby Wardman, as well as drawing analogies between the challenges faced by science advisors to governments and by expert witnesses in courtrooms.
Resources mentioned in this episode * Analysis of climate change cases by Professor Keller and others: https://academic.oup.com/hrlr/article/22/1/ngab030/6497578 * Litigation by Klimaseniorinnen: https://www.klimaseniorinnen.ch/english/ * Climate change decision by the German constitutional court: https://www.whitecase.com/publications/alert/reshaping-climate-change-law * Portuguese youth litigation: http://climatecasechart.com/climate-change-litigation/non-us-case/youth-for-climate-justice-v-austria-et-al
On the same day this episode went live, the world-renowned IPCC published its comprehensive report on climate change impact and adaptation. Taking time out of a hectic 24-hour calendar of scientific meetings and reviews, Professor Diana Ürge-Vorsatz — one of the coordinating lead authors — sat down a week earlier with Toby Wardman of SAPEA to provide a fascinating insider insight into the workings of IPCC and the secret sauce that keeps the world's best-known scientific advice mechanism firing on all cylinders.
Resources mentioned in this episode * IPCC working group 2: https://www.ipcc.ch/working-group/wg2/
Combative debate, accusations and blame are often seen as legitimate tools in the toolbox of partisan political debate. Now, in the new world of high-profile science advisors stepping (or being dragged) into the political limelight, should they be held to the same standards of accountability as their political colleagues?
Two years on from the start of the pandemic, an era of public enquiries is beginning, and Professor Matthew Flinders has something to say about the dangers scientists face — and what practical skills they might need if they want to survive in the shark tank.
Professor Silvio Funtowicz is one of the originators of the concept of post-normal science, which urges us — both scientists and policymakers — to widen the sources of evidence we draw on, the kinds of knowledge we recognise, and the communities who evaluate our success.
In this wide-ranging conversation, Professor Funtowicz lays out the history of post-normal science and delves deeply into its implications for the science-policy interface, especially in a world grappling with multiple public health and climate crises
Resources mentioned in this episode * Foundational paper on post-normal science: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/001632879390022L
The International Council for the Exploration of the Seas is a century-old science advice mechanism. Throughout its long and storied history, it has gained, lost and repaired the trust of national governments and international institutions on many occasions.
In this episode, a social scientist from the Australian National University and the chair of the ICES advisory committee discuss strategies for building and maintaining trust at the science-policy interface — and what goes wrong when scientists become a little bit too trusted.
Policymakers, like the rest of us, construct narratives to understand how the world works and to justify decisions based on that. At their best, these are shaped by scientific evidence. But even the best-informed narratives must by definition leave something out — and when what is left out would challenge or undermine the narrative, this is 'uncomfortable knowledge'.
Our guests today, Mario Giampietro and Roger Strand, argue that failure to confront uncomfortable knowledge in a variety of important areas is leading to existential problems for our democratic institutions. But is it possible to escape the death spiral — and what can science advisors try to do about it?
Resources mentioned in this episode * Keeling curve: https://keelingcurve.ucsd.edu/
The practice of science is impossible without importing its values from society, and it's time to leave behind the notion of the independent science advisor who speaks truth to power. So argues Professor Heather Douglas, author of the influential book 'Science, Policy and the Value-Free Ideal'.
In this episode, Toby Wardman talks to Professor Douglas about how we can make sense of a scientific community imbued with a diverse mixture of ethical values, and which ideals should replace independence for those who give scientific advice to policymakers.
Heather Douglas works at Michigan State University and is a board member of the Peritia project on trust in science.
Resources mentioned in this episode * Science, Policy and the Value-Free Ideal: https://upittpress.org/books/9780822960263/ * Blackawton bee study: https://www.wired.com/2010/12/kids-study-bees/
The global pandemic which began in 2020 has brought unprecedented exposure and pressure for science advisors. A recent book, The Science and Politics of Covid-19, surveys the political and scientific response to the crisis. This episode features a wide-ranging conversation with the author, Dr Michel Claessens, on what went right, what went wrong, and what this might mean for the future of science advice.
Resources mentioned in this episode * The Science and Politics of Covid-19: https://www.bookspot.be/engelse-boeken/the-science-and-politics-of-covid-19-9783030778637
We all know that scientific evidence is just one of many inputs into policymaking. But what if the notion of evidence itself is too narrow? Are there reliable sources of knowledge other than 'evidence', and if so, how can they be integrated into the policymaking process alongside the theories and data offered by science?
At the Centre for Public Impact, Adrian Brown and Thea Snow work to broaden policymakers' understanding of the kinds of knowledge that governments can work with. In this episode, they talk to Toby Wardman about how the world of science advice can adapt to this broader understanding too.
Resources mentioned in this episode * Centre for Public Impact: https://www.centreforpublicimpact.org/ * 'Braiding sweetgrass', by Robin Wall Kimmerer: https://milkweed.org/book/braiding-sweetgrass * 'Seeing like a state', by James Scott: https://yalebooks.yale.edu/book/9780300078152/seeing-state * The Cynefin framework: https://www.cognitive-edge.com/
Politicians and lobbyists alike dream of the silver bullet: a single killer piece of scientific evidence that will change all our minds about future policymaking. But could any simple piece of evidence have the power to beat big ideas in public debate? And can evidence garner political attention even when the politicians don't go looking for it?
Dr Leire Rincón García's field research on the policy of Universal Basic Income seems to suggest that the answer is 'no'. In this episode, Dr Rincón and Toby Wardman together debate why parliamentarians were more likely to ignore emails that cited evidence, what could be done about it, and whether there is a defensible role for the 'activist scientist' in policy advice.
Resources mentioned in this episode * The reverse silver bullet: https://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/tpp/ep/2021/00000017/00000003/art00003;jsessionid=50s51rbqg6uec.x-ic-live-01
One in three people in the world suffers from malnutrition of one form or another. The world's most prominent intergovernmental body for addressing this challenge, the UN Committee on World Food Security, has its own science advice service made up of experts from around the world.
In this episode, Professor Jennifer Clapp gives Toby Wardman a whirlwind tour of the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition, the challenges of making policy in such a complex topic as global food systems, and what it's like to give high-profile science advice at a global level.
Resources mentioned in this episode * Committee on World Food Security High-Level Panel of Experts: http://www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe
In this special episode, twelve scholars of science advice discuss the challenges of incorporating a radically diverse range of perspectives into a science advice process. This conversation was recorded as part of the INGSA 2021 conference on global science advice, and is moderated by Estelle Balian.
Speakers in order of appearance * Jacopo Torriti, Professor of Energy Economics and Policy, School of the Built Environment, University of Reading * Tuula Teeri, President of the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences, Chair of Euro-CASE * Diana Ürge-Vorsatz, Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy Central European University, member of the IPCC and member of SAPEA energy working group * Jennie Stephens, Director of the School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs and the Dean’s Professor of Sustainability Science and Policy, Northeastern University * Thomas Bauwens, Senior Researcher and Lecturer at the Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University * Clark Miller, Professor in the School for the Future of Innovation in Society and Director of the Center for Energy and Society, Arizona State University * Alex Stingl, Centre for Interdisciplinary Methodologies, University of Warwick * Katri Mäkinen-Rostedt, Tampere University * Kristian Nielsen, Research Associate at the Cambridge Social Decision-Making Lab, Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge * Yvan Dutil, Ministry of Health and Social Services, Québec * Heather Douglas, philosopher of science, Michigan State University
Resources mentioned in this episode * Original recording: www.sapea.info/epistemic-diversity
The original recording also includes remarks from Nebojsa Nakicenovic, Tom van Ierland, Sebastien Renaud and David Mair.
When it comes to science advice infrastructure, Europe is far from a unified whole. That's why the European Commission's science service, the Joint Research Centre, set out to map the entire landscape, looking not only at European and national level but also digging into the way science influences policy within regions and even individual cities.
In this episode, Toby Wardman talks to Kristian Krieger and Stijn Verleyen, two of the JRC's project leaders in mapping and evaluating the science-for-policy landscape in Europe.
Resources discussed in this episode * Science for policymaking workshops: https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/evidence-informed-policy-making_en * Science meets parliaments and regions: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/en/science-meets-parliamentscience-meets-regions
How can policymakers really understand the nitty-gritty of a complex system and how their decisions can influence it? How can scientists get a handle on the many competing variables that policymakers must take into account alongside the scientific evidence? One idea is to throw both of them into a live simulation of the system they want to understand, and let them sink or swim.
In this episode, game designer Piotr Magnuszewski and science-policy expert Nicole Arbour chat with Toby Wardman of SAPEA to explore whether, and in what circumstances, games can be a useful form of science advice.
Resources mentioned in this episode * Dennis Meadows's Fish Banks game: https://systemdynamics.org/products/fish-banks-game/ * Introduction to social simulations: https://socialsimulations.org/
The world is more interconnected than ever, and global research is no exception. But when scientists work together across borders, who wins — and who, if anyone, loses? Should policymakers be concerned about 'leakage' of publicly-funded research? How is science advice impacted? And in a global knowledge community, is there any future for old-school concepts like science diplomacy?
Professor Caroline Wagner, author of 'The New Invisible College' and 'The Collaborative Era In Science', joins Toby Wardman of SAPEA to discuss the brave new world of cross-border science, and what, if anything, we can do about it.
Our two-part series focusing on students and early career researchers concludes today with a lively conversation about teaching, learning and scholarship. Dr Leonie Tanczer, the designer of a unique science advice course at University College London, joins two of her former students María Jarquín and Natasha Boyd to discuss how the field is seen through the eyes of students — with a particular focus on improving diversity in the science advice community.
=== Resources mentioned in this episode ===
-
UCL blog post on diversity: https://blogs.ucl.ac.uk/steapp/2019/06/13/science-advice-diversity/
-
McKinsey work on diversity mentioned by Natasha: https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/diversity-wins-interactive
-
EScAPE project: https://escapecovid19.org/
Some scientists get involved with policy without giving up their day jobs. Others take their scientific training and move wholesale into the world of policy, taking up roles as advisors, analysts, knowledge brokers or advocates on specific issues.
In the first in a two-part series focusing on students and early-career researchers, Dr Adriana Bankston of the University of California shares her tips and experiences on leaving academia behind and joining the fast-paced world of policy.
Science, and especially social sciences and humanities, have always had a broad range of impacts on society — impacts which are not easily measured using traditional academic indicators. And engagement with policymakers is one of the trickiest areas to pin down: even when we know it's happening, finding ways to measure and evaluate it can be difficult.
In this episode, Professor David Budtz Pedersen of Aalborg University, Copenhagen, talks to Toby Wardman of SAPEA about ways to discover, strengthen and evaluate the impact of science advice in a fragmented landscape.
==========
Resources mentioned in this episode Report on the Danish science advice ecosystem: https://bit.ly/3zGfLlR
When it's finished, the European Spallation Source in Sweden and Denmark will be the brightest neutron source in the world, opening up new frontiers for science in a broad range of fields. But building a giant facility like this takes decades of commitment from policymakers and scientists alike. In a political environment dominated by short-term thinking, how do we keep everyone on board to see this kind of project through to reality?
Pia Kinhult, Head of Host States Relations at the ESS and a former leading politician in Sweden, talks to Toby Wardman about keeping things sweet between science and policy at the frontier of world-changing — and expensive — materials science.
Resources mentioned in this episode * European Spallation Source: https://europeanspallationsource.se/
To coincide with the twentieth birthday of the European Academies' Science Advisory Council, their president Christina Moberg joins Toby Wardman to discuss the role of academies in advising policymakers, communicating with citizens, and contributing to society more generally.
We also discuss the history and role of EASAC, the new challenges of science advice post-COVID, and Nobel prizes.
What happens when your country needs a new science advice system, but all you have is a blank sheet of paper and a mandate to experiment?
The Finnish Academy of Science and Letters set out in 2019 to reinvent science advice with their Sofi project. Two years later, the project is about to become a permanent fixture, and its principal architects Jaakko Kuosmanen and Risto Nieminen talk to Toby Wardman about what worked, what didn't, and how to tell the difference.
How much political appetite is there for science advice to foreign policy — and how much impact does it have? What are the differences between advising ministers and advising diplomats? What does the phrase 'science diplomacy' actually mean?
Jan Marco Müller discusses these questions with Toby Wardman of SAPEA. We also discuss how to develop advice demand as well as supply, the geopolitics of Russia's vaccine policy, and navigating centuries of accumulated jargon in the international relations sphere.
How do the COVID vaccines work? How do we prioritise recipients? What are the major decisions facing policymakers when executing a mass vaccination campaign -- and where can science help to advise them?
George Griffin discusses these questions with Toby Wardman of SAPEA. We also discuss how to get jabs to developing countries, the origins of the anti-vax movement, and whether we should be worried about rare blood clots.
Special thanks to Rúben Castro for technical help in producing this episode.
How is Antarctica governed, and why do scientists play such a key role in running it? What science advice structures exist to advise Antarctic decision-makers, and how do they function? Can the whole science-as-governance system, designed in the 1950s, survive into the 21st century?
Natasha Gardiner discusses these questions with Toby Wardman of SAPEA. We also discuss decision-making deadlock, saving seals, and how to start a new human colony on one of Saturn's moons.
Resources discussed in this episode * Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research: https://www.scar.org/policy/science-policy/ * Committee for Environmental Protection: https://www.ats.aq/e/committee.html
Can unofficial or self-appointed science advice structures be valuable, or are they destabilising? What responsibilities does a science advisor have when they disagree with the consensus view? What's going wrong, if anything, when a politician picks up the phone and calls their own favourite scientist for input?
Roger Pielke Jr discusses these questions with Toby Wardman of SAPEA. We also discuss the dubious wisdom of electing your commander-in-chief, asking your friend to give you brain surgery, and channeling the dark side of the force.
How widespread is the use of big data in government decision-making? What questions should policymakers ask when presented with policy recommendations based on data modelling? Should opaque models based on machine-learning algorithms come with a health warning?
Tracey Brown discusses these questions with Toby Wardman of SAPEA. We also discuss spurious precision in scientific results, whether US election pollsters got it right or wrong, and the psychology of ordering wine.
Resources discussed in this episode Sense About Science guide to data science: https://wordpress-398250-1278369.cloudwaysapps.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/SaS-DataScienceGuide-V8-SinglePages.pdf
What does the worldwide scientific community think of how science advice was used in 2020? What impact have lockdown, home-working and the race for a vaccine had on the life and work of individual scientists? Have other areas of science-related policy, such as climate change, been boosted or sidelined since COVID?
Fred Fenter and Stephan Kuster discuss these questions with Toby Wardman of SAPEA. We also discuss whether a worldwide crisis helps or hinders the cause of open access publishing, whether it has made the scientific community more connected or more disjointed, and why giving public science advice is a risky and often thankless task.
Resources mentioned in this episode * Research paper on the academic response to COVID-19: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2020.621563/full
The Dutch parliament is trialling a new, radical way to take advice from scientists on every draft law that comes before it. How legally robust is it? What are the risks for scientists of getting involved in the cut and thrust of parliamentary debate, and for politicians of inviting professors to "mark their homework"?
Pieter Duisenberg, Joost Sneller and Dr Liesbeth Hulst talk to Toby Wardman of SAPEA about the new science advice mechanism in the parliament of the Netherlands. They also discuss upstream effects of downstream policy changes, the challenges of building a bridge between worlds, and whether such a scheme could be replicated elsewhere.
Why is multidisciplinary science advice so difficult, and are there ways to make it easier? Should policymakers seek ethics advice as well as science advice? When there is a conflict between the values embedded in different cultural contexts, how can we navigate the conflict sensitively?
Christiane Woopen, Paul Nurse and Peter Piot discuss these questions with Toby Wardman of SAPEA. We also discuss the unique challenges of giving advice in a crisis, the relationship between ‘discovery’ and applied science, and whether Rambo would make a good government advisor.
Resources discussed in this episode * Joint statement on scientific advice during COVID-19: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/346c8eaf-ba79-11ea-811c-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-139601691 * Joint opinion on improving pandemic preparedness and management: https://op.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/a1016d77-2562-11eb-9d7e-01aa75ed71a1/language-en/format-PDF/source-171481573
What makes science journalism a tough job? How should the media handle the complexities of science advice systems, especially during a pandemic? And when science advice, political controversy and public health get tangled up together, is a journalist the right person to try and unpick them?
Miriam Frankel discusses these questions with Toby Wardman of SAPEA. We also discuss how not to accidentally amplify fringe scientists, how to coach science advisors to talk to the public, and whether non-specialist readers really care about anything beyond just black holes and dinosaurs.
Resources mentioned in this episode * The Conversation: https://theconversation.com/
How does Angela Merkel’s confidential science and innovation advisory group function? When can industry stakeholders play a role in science advice, and what are the benefits and challenges when they do?
Florian Süssenguth discusses these questions with Toby Wardman of SAPEA. We also discuss the difficulty of measuring impact, science advice in the post-Merkel future, and what innovation actually means anyway.
Resources mentioned in this episode * Innovation Dialogue: https://www.acatech.de/projekt/innovationsdialog-zwischen-bundesregierung-wirtschaft-und-wissenschaft/
Note to listeners: The version of this episode first published on Christmas Day included a minor editing error around minute 40 (a few moments of silence). A corrected version was published on 4 January. If your podcast app had downloaded the episode before that date, but you haven't yet listened to it, you may wish to delete and re-download the episode so you have the corrected version. Apologies for the inconvenience!
What joint challenges are faced by policy advisors and TV advisors? Why would a committed scientist make the switch from basic research to the entertainment industry? How serious is Star Trek about 'getting the science right'?
Dr Erin Macdonald discusses these questions with Toby Wardman of SAPEA. We also discuss the nature of gene transfer in tardigrades, whether it’s wise to step into the transporter, and how to solve the Heisenberg uncertainty principle in one easy step.
How is the nature of knowledge changing? What is the impact of the digital revolution on the roles of universities, academies and science advisors? Is democratisation of knowledge always a good thing?
Professor Antonio Loprieno discusses these questions with Toby Wardman of SAPEA. We also discuss how to digitally unwrap an Egyptian mummy, whether there is such a thing as objective truth, and how loudly Toby can scream when his audio is muted.
Is there a fundamental tension between democracy and expertise? How can non-experts evaluate experts? When we design science advice systems, should we prioritise independence or interdependence?
Professor Cathrine Holst discusses these questions with Toby Wardman of SAPEA. We also discuss techniques to reduce human error in science advice, how to pronounce awkward acronyms, and whether populism is the chicken or the egg.
Resources discussed in this episode * The PERITIA project on trust in expertise: https://peritia-trust.eu/
Why does European Commission science advice work the way it does? Why did former President Juncker discontinue the standalone post of chief science advisor? Why has the EU settled on a hybrid model which combines advisors, academies and officials?
Maria da Graça Carvalho MEP discusses these questions with Toby Wardman of SAPEA. We also discuss the separate role of the Joint Research Centre, how to attract women and girls to high-salary tech jobs of the future, and whether any science can survive the entire legislative procedure.
Resources discussed in this episode The Science Advice Mechanism: https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/support-policy-making/scientific-support-eu-policies/group-chief-scientific-advisors_en
What does our best available evidence tell us about public trust in science and science advice? How has that evolved recently? And what's the moral of the story for science advisors, policymakers, and the people who design science advice systems?
Dr Cary Funk of Pew Research in Washington DC discusses these questions with Toby Wardman of SAPEA. We also discuss whether you can educate people into trusting you, why people give confusingly different answers to seemingly similar questions, and what ‘trust’ actually means anyway.
Resources discussed in this episode * Pew Research's study on trust in scientists: https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2020/09/29/science-and-scientists-held-in-high-esteem-across-global-publics/
Is it possible to develop a unified science of catastrophic risk? How can we convince policymakers to take risks to human existence seriously enough? How can we improve our foresight so that we can spot the next big disaster before it hits us?
Dr Clarissa Rios Rojas discusses these questions with Toby Wardman of SAPEA. We also discuss how to start a difficult conversation with a politician, whether future doomsday manuals should be stuffed into envelopes or just put online, and why being a scientist is cool.
Should scientists be free to speak out if they don’t like how politicians use science? Who is to blame if government policy doesn’t follow advice? Why were some countries hit harder than others by COVID in the spring, and did the quality of science advice have anything to do with it? When do scientists speak as scientists, and when are they simply ordinary citizens?
Sir Mark Walport discusses these questions with Toby Wardman of SAPEA. We also discuss the job of a chief scientific advisor, who's really in control of coronavirus (hint: it's not us), and why UK emergency response committees have such awesome names.
How can science advice — and science in general — keep up with dramatic changes in the world? How do you build an organisation that can translate scientific results into policy solutions? What responsibilities do politicians have when they choose to ignore or override scientific advice?
Vladimír Šucha and Marta Sienkiewicz discuss these questions with Toby Wardman of SAPEA. We also discuss the nature of trust, how intimately linked scientists and politicians can safely become, and whether scientists do in fact know everything.
Resources discussed in this episode * Science for Policy handbook: https://ec.europa.eu/jrc/communities/en/community/evidence4policy/document/science-policy-handbook
Do policymakers and scientists have different understandings of "risk"? How can scientific uncertainty be pinned down and quantified? When experts disagree about the evidence, is there anything useful that the policymaker can take away from that disagreement?
Bart Koelmans discusses these questions with Toby Wardman of SAPEA. We also discuss the strength of the evidence for harm from microplastics, the limits of the natural sciences, what numerical value of probability is implied by the word "probably", and how English speakers should try to pronounce the word "Wageningen".
Bart is a professor in Aquatic Ecology and Water Quality at Wageningen University and at Wageningen Marine Research. His main research is on the risks and impacts of microplastic pollution, on which topic he has chaired science advice groups for the UN and European Commission as well as national governments and other policymakers.
As always, the opinions expressed in this episode are those of the speakers and not necessarily those of SAPEA or the European Commission.
Resources discussed in this episode * WHO report on microplastics in drinking water: https://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/microplastics-in-drinking-water/en/ * SAPEA report on microplastics pollution: https://www.sapea.info/topics/microplastics/
What's it like to be a Chief Scientific Advisor? Why does the European Commission's Scientific Advice Mechanism use both advisors and academies? What have the advisors learned in the first five years of the mechanism's existence and what tips would they give to their successors?
Professors Rolf-Dieter Heuer and Pearl Dykstra discuss these questions with Toby Wardman of SAPEA. We also talk about making sense of disagreements science, whether the world is really losing faith in experts, and whether time travellers recently saved the world from being destroyed by a miniature black hole.
Resources discussed in this episode
- The Scientific Opinion 'Scientific Advice to European Policy in a Complex World': https://ec.europa.eu/info/research-and-innovation/strategy/support-policy-making/scientific-support-eu-policies/group-chief-scientific-advisors/scientific-advice-european-policy-complex-world_en
- Report on the first five years of the Scientific Advice Mechanism: https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/informing-european-commission-policy-making-scientific-evidence_en
What has COVID-19 taught us about science advice? How have different countries responded to evolving evidence during the pandemic? Have some science advice models performed better than others in terms of public health outcomes? Can science advice really help much when evidence is partial or controversial, and decisions are needed at high speed?
Sir Peter Gluckman discusses these questions with Toby Wardman of SAPEA. We also discuss where to draw the line between evidence and democratic decision-making; whether scientists should air their disagreements in public or keep them behind closed doors; scientific hubris vs humility; and the emerging phenomenon of the celebrity science advisor.
Sir Peter is president of the International Network for Government Science Advice, president-elect of the International Science Council, director of Koi Tū: the Centre for Informed Futures at the University of Auckland, and the former Chief Scientific Advisor to the government of New Zealand.
As always, the opinions expressed in this episode are those of the speakers and not necessarily those of SAPEA or the European Commission.
Resources discussed in this episode * INGSA's evidence-to-policy tracker: https://www.ingsa.org/covid/policymaking-tracker-landing/ * Peter Gluckman's essay on the impact of science advice on COVID-19 response: https://informedfutures.org/reflections-on-the-evidentiary-politics-interface/