• Home
  • About us
  • Events
  • Next Event
  • Blog
  • Photos
  • Links
  • RESOURCES
Science in Policy

The Place of Science in Policy-Making

11/28/2016

1 Comment

 
Given that only 4% of our current MPs have a scientific background, it’s vital that researchers have an input into policy-making. At the second SiP conference The Place of Science in Policy-Making on Friday 11th November, our guest speakers gave us a flavour of the various ways scientists can reach governments – and the fun that can be had along the way!

Our first speaker, Kate Dommett from the Crick Centre in Sheffield, argued that all scientists –not just Professors – should be entering political debates: “Don’t see Parliament as something to engage with at the end – think of it from the outset to make sure your research can influence policy recommendations” she said.  However, the alien culture of politics– with its time pressures and thousands of issues at stake- deters many scientists from approaching MPs. In this case, it can be better to engage with parliamentary staff, such as civil servants and committees, who have longer-term posts and often a genuine interest in research. But to have an influence, you need to explain the relevance of your work and for this Kate recommends keeping a blog: apparently, parliamentary staff see these as a ‘godsend’ for understanding science! “Get to know Parliament and build relationships” Kate added. “Follow relevant Select Committees on Twitter, arrange a visit to Parliament and sign up to the Parliamentary Outreach Newsletter”.
But with so many voices in Parliament, how do we make sure that the science is not lost, particularly during a crisis? “We are now in a dangerous place, not so much ‘post-truth’, but where people ask “Why should we believe anything you say?”” said Stevie de Saille, from the International Network for Government Science Advice (INGSA). Given that unpredictable events – such as volcanic eruptions or pandemic outbreaks – are becoming more common, it is critical that we have effective procedures for bringing relevant evidence into emergency debates. To address this, INGSA was founded to improve the use of evidence in informing public policy, and promote an international ideal for a scientific advisory community.

Part of INGSA’s work is building the capacity of advisory groups through hosting workshops that feature immersive roleplays. During the afternoon session, we were able to experience some of these case studies for ourselves, which forced us to grapple with the conflicting interests of scientists, politicians and the public. Even for a fictional scenario, the issues can be complex with no simple solutions. “You very rarely get clear information that tells you ‘Do this’ or ‘Do that’” said Stevie. Clearly, when scientists meet politicians they need more than research skills but also the ability to communicate, negotiate and emphasise.

The same rings true for the European Parliament, as Linda McAvan, MEP for Yorkshire and Humber, described. “It’s not a case of faceless bureaucrats in Brussels dreaming up things to annoy the British public; there are a lot of people involved in decisions; a lot of deliberation, talking and compromise” she said. MEPs scrutinise each drafted law line by line and make countless revisions until a consensus is reached – all while being lobbied by campaign groups, industry, pharma companies and the like. As such, she advises scientists hoping to get involved in a debate to be strategic. “There is no point lobbying anyone and everyone. Find out who is working on that decisions and when, then get to the right person at the right time”.

Rebecca Hill, journalist and online editor of PublicTechnology, then gave some practical advice on how to use the media to get your research onto the public stage, where policy makers can find it. First of all, be patient: “I’ve met researchers who say ‘I’m not speaking to you until you’ve read all my papers’” said Rebecca. “But you shouldn’t expect journalists to know as much about your science as you do”. Remember that writing for the media is very different to composing a research paper: avoid jargon and focus on one simple message. “The whole story has to be grasped in the first paragraph, especially for online news where you are competing with the latest celebrity scandal” said Rebecca. Don’t be afraid to pitch your story, but if you don’t want to approach an editor yourself, then your institute’s Press Office or the Science Media Centre can bridge the gap.

During the afternoon, William Bird (formerly Strategic Health Advisor for Natural England) described how we often need to be creative to translate scientific evidence into behavioural changes. Junk food may be frequently blamed for the obesity crisis but William argues that there is another cause: “We were designed to be connected to nature and yet 54% of the world population lives in cities”. Studies have shown that decreased access to nature increases depression and stress, putting our bodies in a state of chronic inflammation; this is increasingly thought to be the cause of a host of modern ailments, including dementia, cancer, arthritis and obesity. “We need to deal with the root source and that is where nature, social cohesion and connectedness come in” said William. Simply telling people what to do is unlikely to work – especially when they are battling with depression. Instead, success comes when we “hide physical activity behind a greater experience” – such as GreenGyms, or the “Beat the Street” initiative, where people can earn points by running, walking or cycling around their town.

Our final speaker, Jonathan Wentworth, gave us an overview of the work of the Parliamentary Office for Science and Technology (POST). As an advisory panel for the Government, POST “is there to influence the debate but we are impartial: we don’t make recommendations”. Besides providing up-to-date evidence for current issues, POST also has a role in horizon scanning and identifying emerging trends. “It is very hard to get politicians to think about the future, as their job is so reactive” Jonathan said. For early-career scientists considering a career in the policy arena, a POST Fellowship can be an invaluable experience. “Most of our work is actually done by PhD interns who write POST Briefing Notes for MPs” said Jonathan (for more on the scheme, click here).

The day ended with a lively panel discussion, where our delegates voiced their concerns about entering the political scene. Can it damage a scientist’s reputation to engage in policy debates? According to Jonathan, “The real problem is when scientists don’t know they are being advocates: if you are trying to prove something, you stop questioning and stop being a scientist”. Why should PhD students bother at all, with pressures from their supervisors to finish their thesis? Rebecca pointed out that supervisors themselves need to show that their labs are involved in public and policy engagement for grant applications. Stevie noted that “If you aim to stay in Academia, engaging now is good training for how you will use your impact in the future”. Even if we do try, how can we reach politicians who won’t accept science? In these cases, appealing to the public may be key: “If the wider public believe something strongly enough, MPs will respond” said Jonathan. Which just highlights how wide the policy arena stretches, meaning that anyone you reach can start to make ripples in the pond. Writing to MPs, taking part in a science festival, starting a blog – it all counts, so get started!
1 Comment

An Introduction to Science in Policy

11/4/2016

1 Comment

 
Last week saw our first SiP event of the new academic term - “An Introduction to Science Policy”. Besides presenting an overview of the science and policy interface, this gave us a chance to welcome our new intake of PhD students and encourage them to consider how their research relates to wider society.

SiP committee member Christopher Nelson started off by describing the structure of the UK Parliament and where science comes into this. “Given that only 4% of our current MPs have a science degree, the government needs input from the scientific community to make evidence-based policies” he said. As such, Parliament is supported by a host of organisations that provide scientific advice, including government ministers, select committees, the Civil Service and the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST). Yet science and policy are driven by very different factors and even if the prevailing evidence supports a certain measure, other issues have an impact, such as economics and public acceptability. It can take a long time for research to influence government agendas; as Christopher explained. “Individual studies rarely change policy – instead it is an expert consensus and body of evidence that prevails”.
This makes it vital that scientists are able to demonstrate to the public why their research is important and why it should be trusted. As SiP committee member Helen Hicks put it: “Science isn’t finished until it is communicated”. She set us the task of describing our research projects using the analogy of a box of chocolates. There were certainly some imaginative reinterpretations (perhaps incentivised by the free sweets), most of which seemed to end up by covering the floor with chocolates!
We then welcomed our guest speaker Dr Daniel Leary from the Government Office for Science, who introduced us to what the Civil Service is, and the role of science and engineering within it. “Our job is to help governments develop policies and deliver their vision for citizens” he said. This organisation, made up of various departments reporting to government ministers, provides both services (such as pensions, passports and benefits) and advice. The science and technology sector has grown considerably since the first Chief Science Advisor was appointed in 1964, with there now being 70 Science Advisory Councils. Some of these cover broad themes – e.g. defence, transport and health and safety – whereas others focus on specific policy areas, such as solar energy and nuclear power. They act as a link between MPs in Parliament and academics, industry experts and NGOs – which is crucial when important decisions have to be made quickly. Daniel gave the example of when the government chose to close all airports following the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull; “This wasn’t a decision which was taken lightly, but it was based on high quality advice from the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies”.
With such diversity, a career within the Civil Service can offer scientists varied work with the potential to directly impact everyday life. “You won’t be sat at a lab bench or looking down a microscope – you will be meeting experts face to face, sourcing advice and set a broad range of intellectually interesting jobs” said Daniel. But this requires strong skills – particularly communication: the ability to translate complex information to non-specialists and to pick out key messages. “We look for people with adaptability, drive and ambition” said Daniel. “You also need to be completely impartial – prepared to serve any government with equal diligence”. If you think you have what it takes, the next step is to apply to the Civil Service Science and Engineering Fast Stream: a rigorous process that involves online questionnaires, decision tests, video interviews and an assessment centre. But the reward could be a career far different to the usual options in academia and industry. As Daniel aptly summarised: “Working in the Civil Service is like a box of chocolates- you never know what you’re going to get”.
To learn more about Science and Engineering in the Civil Service, watch ‘The GSE Story’. Further information about the Science and Engineering Fast Stream can be found here. Also, look out for internships advertised on the Civil Service jobs portal. 

​Written by Caroline Wood, PhD student in the Department of Animal and Plant Sciences and SiP committee member
See more of Caroline's work on her blog http://scienceasadestiny.blogspot.co.uk/ 
1 Comment
    Tweets by @ScienceinPolicy

    Author

    We are a group of early career scientists, technicians and teaching staff from the Faculty of Science at the University of Sheffield. We have a common interest in the relationship between science and policy making.

    Our blog posts represent individual opinions only and not those of Science in Policy or the University of Sheffield. Primarily, the blog is a tool to facilitate healthy debate and discussion.

    Archives

    June 2018
    May 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    January 2017
    November 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    March 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    February 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    June 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013

    Categories

    All

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly