JRC-COST INSGA 2021 panel. Photo: COST website.
JRC-COST INSGA 2021 panel ‘independence in science advice’ explores how to improve the science-policy interface
Following a series of summer webinars exploring the stakes of science communication and science for policy exercises, COST and the JRC (Joint Research Centre) joined forces once again at the INSGA (International Network for Government Science Advice) 2021 ’ conference: “Build back wiser: knowledge, policy and public dialogue”. The online ‘satellite session’ took place on 9 September 2021 and addressed the topic ‘independence in science advice’ through an animated discussion, moderated by former European news correspondent Cathy Smith, between three panel members:
- Dr Sara Basart, Chair of the COST Action “International Network to Encourage the Use of Monitoring and Forecasting Dust Products (InDust)”
- Prof. David Budtz Pedersen, Chair of the “COST Cross-Cutting Activity (CCA) on Science Communication” Action
- Dr Jan Marco Müller, Science & Technology Advisor at European External Action Service
How the Covid-19 pandemic led to science communication’s public awareness
One of the first facts pointed out by the panellists is the role the pandemic has played in raising public awareness about independence of science but also about independence of politics. “The roles played by scientists and politicians are extremely different”, explains Jan Marco Müller. “The role of politicians is to take decisions in a very complicated and complex environment, which is something we need to acknowledge. The role of scientists, on the other hand, is to inform, and more particularly to inform policy makers”.
The observation made during the pandemic is that demand for policy making and scientific advice was higher and also more visible to citizens than outside times of crises. On both sides, scientists and policymakers had to defend themselves against the suspicion of “bending” the science to fit political needs. However, perhaps less expected, the public discourse also shed light on the other side of that equation. Politicians and other policy makers suddenly found themselves criticised for allegedly blindly following scientific advisers’ suggestions, and allegations of countries being run by virologists instead of elected politicians surfaced.
When asked if an independent science advisor even exists, Jan Marco Müller responded: “Absolutely. Of course, we have our own biases and opinions but we have to be aware of them, factor them in and stick to a transparent approach when we feed into the policy process. My role is to question if policy is really based on the best possible evidence. You’re a translator between both worlds and need to gain trust from both sides.”
Prof. David Budtz Pedersen added that “in times of emergencies like pandemics, climate change and other urgent issues, you have to be pragmatic and understand that the voice of scientists can only be heard within a limited timeframe. So, what you need to do is to make as much scientific sense as possible throughout the policy process. In many of these situations, scientists are only one component of a very complex policy process. In this way scientists can help shape policy making but should never be in charge of decision making”.
How trust, community and science advisors can ensure scientific independence
Creating an environment of trust between policy makers and the scientific community is essential to bridge the gap between the need for transparency and confidentiality. “In general, trust is extremely important. It is promoted and created by openness, transparency and responsibility. These are the very core principles of science advice”, explained Prof. David Budtz Pedersen. Trust is driven by the community and common values. To build trust, and therefore to create dialogue, the challenge is not only to gather policy makers, scientists and the civil society around shared common values, but also to create an open space for co-creation and dialogue. Dr Sara Basart points out that “scientists are now facing a new challenge: communication. First, it is important to create a need in society by explaining the problem and thereby creating interest. Then you must reflect on the best way to communicate your research to a wider audience”. Dr Basart also pointed out that “for a scientist, it is very difficult to start a new discussion and to enter the complicated world of policy making”.
The discussion also led to the question how the scientific community, and more specifically science advisors, can preserve its independence and integrity when advising policy makers. Critics within the scientific community itself wonder whether science advisors can be compromised or could compromise the research to fit a broader political agenda. Dr Muller finds one solution in the establishment of a chief science advisor system: “Science advisors advance the independence of science advice. By bringing together Chief Science Advisors with their individual, outspoken roles and Agencies that provide more technical expertise, organisations can claim to have developed an independent science advice ecosystem. COVID-19 has increased the pressure for governments to step up efforts in this area.”
In addition, Prof. Budtz Pedersen promoted the idea of having guidelines (‘code of conduct’) in place on how to behave when providing input into policy making.
Dr Basart promoted multi-disciplinarity as a key condition for comprehensive, independent science advice: “When we talk about science advice, this means bringing together people from different backgrounds and expertise.”
Panellists agreed that a multidisciplinary approach accelerates progress in both policy making and science.
Dr Müller shared the reflection that “policy and science work at different speed. Policy makers need to produce something useful every day, or several times a day when dealing with a crisis for example. And science, of course, is an exercise that produces publications at a lower pace. What is important is to create a space where the two can meet”.
Dr Basart: “The key condition for valuable science informed policy advice is effective and clear communication. What happens after giving advice is pure politics. Moreover, it is important to make a distinction between science advice and science work, as these two are very different.”
Prof. Budtz Pedersen: “It all comes down to institutional mechanisms which recognise the limits of science. Science informs but does not make up policy.”
Dr Müller: “Policy makers should be open about using scientific evidence and still feel they can make decisions that go against scientific advice. At the same time, we as scientists need to realise that we have a societal role, we need to get out of our ivory towers and out of our comfort zone.”
This article was first published on September 13 by COST.