Research institutes need to navigate a complex relationship between science and government policy. Working collaboratively on policy can bring significant benefits.
The relationship between science and politics is constantly evolving. While science deals in facts, public policy makers have to balance a variety of other considerations alongside scientific evidence.
These include the availability of resources, impacts on other areas of government policy and - crucially - public opinion.
Over the last century, we have seen the value of science in policy making. Vaccination, new medical treatment, and control of infectious diseases - as well as improved nutrition, hygiene, housing and sanitation - have all contributed to advances in public health based on science.
Policy needs scientific evidence to inform decisions and science needs government support to fund research and turn data and discoveries into real-world results.
The Earlham Institute organised and hosted the first Connecting Research Culture Conference earlier this year.
The conference was supported by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) Connecting Culture fund.
Representatives from the eight BBSRC strategically funded research institutes and research culture leaders from several different funders, universities and wider sectors were all present to examine what we can collectively do to improve research culture.
At a popular workshop, attendees discussed what scientific organisations could do to bridge the gap between science and policy.
Attendees raised concerns about missed government consultation opportunities due to tight deadlines, reduced resources due to budget cuts and different priorities across institutions leading to fragmented efforts.
The consensus was that collaboration on policy advocacy was essential to achieve more impact. Sharing political intelligence, expertise and the capability for a rapid and unified response on urgent policy issues would help researchers engage policy makers more effectively.
When scientists and policy-makers work together it usually leads to better, longer-lasting and more effective public policy decisions.
Saskia Hervey leads a policy workshop at the Connecting Research Culture Conference earlier this year
The Earlham Institute’s Head of Public Affairs, Saskia Hervey, explains a scientific evidence base is necessary for policy.
"When scientists and policy-makers work together it usually leads to better, longer-lasting and more effective public policy decisions,” she says.
“The UK's policy landscape is dramatically changing. We have a relatively new Labour Government in Westminster and, here in Norfolk, devolution and local government reform will deliver substantial changes. The global context also has an impact - for example, the UK's relationships with America and the EU are evolving rapidly.
“Public opinion can change quickly and be manipulated easily. We need public policy at the local, national and global scales to be based more on evidence than on the interpretation of public opinion and conjecture.”
Researchers need to understand the public policy landscape and to identify the opportunities to feed in their expertise and evidence.
Researchers at the Earlham Institute are working to inform public policy on a wide range of issues, from human health to the environment, and from science and innovation funding to skills policy.
It is essential these discussions - which will deeply affect the way researchers work - have input from scientists.
“Researchers need to understand the public policy landscape and to identify the opportunities to feed in their expertise and evidence,” says Saskia.
“They also need to help policy makers to see where more research is needed to future proof policy. Some of my role is to facilitate that exchange of knowledge, to generate interest in our research and to help my research colleagues communicate their findings to policy makers including civil servants, political advisers and parliamentarians.
“Usually, working collaboratively with other individuals and organisations that share our thinking, helps to amplify our voice in the policy process and then strengthen the scientific integrity of public policy decisions.”
