Advising governments on scientific matters is essential but difficult. So train people to do it

Earlier this year, Nature asked science policy experts which country is particularly good at ensuring that science is taken into account in government decisions. The question mystified many respondents. “I don’t know any of them,” one wrote. “None has an enviable system,” writes another. “Very hard to say,” said a third.

Science could solve some of the world’s biggest problems. Why don’t governments use it?

This sums up the poor view many have of scientific advice to governments. Naturethe investigation was sent to several thousand people around the world, most of whom are affiliated with the International Government Science Advice Network (INGSA), a global association of researchers and policymakers based in Auckland, New Zealand. Around 80% of around 400 people surveyed rated their country’s science advice system as uneven, poor or very poor. Blame is shared on both sides: 77% say policymakers and politicians ignore and underestimate scientific advice, and 73% say researchers don’t understand the policy.

This dark verdict is worrying. Nearly five years have passed since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, during which many scientists have had difficulty giving advice to governments and politicians have had difficulty implementing it. And yet it seems that only a few countries have stopped carrying out reparations. Today’s governments are grappling with climate change, infectious diseases, artificial intelligence and wars. To effectively solve these problems, they need knowledge from research. More than 70% of respondents said misinformation and disinformation cloud scientific advice.

Having science-responsive political leaders is an essential ingredient for effective science advice. Another solution is to have people who can do it well. It is a misconception to think that someone who succeeds in research will also succeed in politics and policymaking, where events move more quickly than in academia and where presentation style is as important as what is said. Improving global scientific advice – and therefore improving the world – requires better trained and better qualified people for the job.

Why we need a body to oversee how science is used by governments

That brilliant scientists often prove ineffective in government has been evident since at least the mid-1960s, when the first intergovernmental chief scientific adviser was appointed in the United Kingdom. “Having gained access to the corridors of power, scientists could not find their way to the men’s room,” science journalist Peter Ritchie Calder wrote in his 1975 memoir. British government scientists. The politicians were not much better, he added: they were “deferential, even gullible, but, on the whole, they did not know the right questions to ask.”

A lot has changed in the years since. Today, many countries have well-established formal systems in which governments use chief scientific advisers, national academies and committees of scientists to inform their policies based on evidence from research. Beyond that, research shapes policy in a variety of ways, from think tank reports to meetings between scientists and politicians.

In addition to an understanding of science, an essential quality of scientific advisors is a good understanding of: the functioning of governments and their ministries; the objectives and deadlines of policy makers; and how evidence can be appropriately added to the whole. This experience can be gained, for example, through scholarships or internships in government agencies. In the United States, the American Association for the Advancement of Science runs a well-known stock market in Washington DC. There are many others.

Another requirement is a repertoire of soft skills: the ability to communicate complex ideas in succinct, everyday language; the ability to build relationships of trust, so that policymakers have confidence in the information they receive and their trust is not betrayed; be able to respectfully understand the views and priorities of others, no matter how different they may be. “Only in this way can you hope to convey the evidence to them in a way that will help them understand and appreciate it,” says Mark Ferguson, who was Ireland’s chief scientific adviser between 2012 and 2022.

Knowledge Brokers

Training scientists for policy is one approach. It is also important to nurture an emerging group known as knowledge brokers – people who specialize in integrating research evidence into government.

AI tools as science policy advisors? The potential and the pitfalls

A growing number of institutions around the world provide training for scientists and knowledge brokers. One of them is the International Institute for Science Diplomacy and Sustainability in Kuala Lumpur, founded last year by Zakri Abdul Hamid, a former science adviser to the Malaysian prime minister. The institute trains people to bridge science and international diplomacy, for example preparing them for United Nations climate meetings.

INGSA also offers training, but wants to do more, says Rémi Quirion, chief scientist of Quebec, Canada and president of INGSA. Research funders and employers must encourage researchers to train and work in scientific consulting. About 60% of respondents said the failure of funders to do so was a barrier to scientific advice.

These efforts must be based on evidence. A 2022 study identified more than 1,900 initiatives worldwide aimed at promoting greater engagement between policymakers and researchers, from collaboratively producing policy briefs to networking events (K.Olivier and others. Obvious. Policy 18691-713; 2022). Only 6% have been evaluated to assess their effectiveness.

Today’s challenges are galvanizing interest in science policy among young people who see it as a more direct way to have an impact than pure research. This is good news. It’s easy for researchers to complain that politicians don’t understand science. A better answer is to learn about politics and policy, and get involved.