by Ravinithesh Annapureddy
The intersection of science and policy was at the heart of a round table organized by the Science Policy Action Network (SPAN) association of EPFL. Held on October 8th, this insightful event brought together academic experts to explore the challenges of translating scientific knowledge into actionable policy. The round table featured renowned scholars Dominique Foray, Philippe Thalmann, and Karen Scrivener, moderated by Marie Jones, a fourth-year PhD student at EPFL.
Dominique Foray, an economist, recounted his pivotal role in shaping the EU’s “Smart Specialisation” policy. What started as a short paper evolved into a significant influence on regional economic policy in Europe. His experience highlighted the complexities of moving from academic theory to concrete policy implementation, where compromises and adjustments become unavoidable.
Karen Scrivener, a materials chemist who is regarding as a world expert on cement and concrete, shared both her academic and industry insights on implementing sustainable solutions. Her contributions focused on the vital importance of communication, stressing that bridging the gap between scientific knowledge and public understanding is essential for effecting change. Karen also emphasized the need to address misconceptions and confront prevailing narratives, which can be a stumbling block for progress.
Philippe Thalmann, a specialist on economics of the natural and built environment, reflected on his involvement in the Swiss Glacier Initiative. This national-level policy work demonstrated the significant influence that scientists can wield in shaping policy. However, Philippe noted the need for scientific rigor in policy proposals and emphasized the importance of direct engagement with stakeholders.
Translating Research into Policy: A Two-Way Street
All three panellists agreed that their engagement with policymakers has influenced their research, requiring them to adapt their approaches and dissemination methods. Philippe stressed the importance of pragmatism and practicality when crafting policy recommendations. He noted that while theoretical models are important, they must be adapted to address real-world complexities if they are to be implemented effectively.
One of the most profound tensions in science-policy interactions is the need for simplification. Science thrives on complexity—intricate methodologies, nuanced findings, and careful generalization. Policymakers, however, often require quick, digestible answers to complex problems. Dominique’s experience developing the “Smart Specialisation” policy for the EU highlighted this tension. His initial reluctance to scale the policy across the entire EU, due to regional differences, was met with pressure from the European Commission to adopt a “one-size-fits-all” approach. Reflecting on this, Dominique noted, “We are complex, they are simple,” emphasizing the reality of trying to communicate nuanced ideas in a fast-paced policy environment where speed and simplicity are often prioritized.
This mismatch of priorities was echoed by other panellists. Philippe recalled how climate policy reports were often stripped of controversial or intricate details to prevent them from being misrepresented by opponents. The focus shifted from scientific integrity to how the reports would be received by the public and policymakers.
On the other hand, Karen emphasized how she battled to not oversimplify facts when she was presenting a report on the future of cement to UNEP representatives (United Nations Environmental Program). This experience showed her the necessity to adapt her discourse to the background knowledge of the audience, without compromising on accuracy. She will continue this equilibrist exercise as part of the 10-member group to promote Science, Technology and Innovation for Sustainable Development Goals at the UN.
The Importance of Compromise and Persistence
The discussion also shed light on the necessity of compromise in navigating the policy landscape. Dominique’s experience with the EU’s “Smart Specialisation” policy illustrated the need to adapt academic concepts into workable, scalable policies. He touched upon the complexities of working across different cultural and institutional contexts, where communication styles and expectations may vary widely.
Karen emphasized persistence in advocating for sustainable changes, particularly in industries like cement production. Shifting narratives and changing deeply ingrained practices require time, patience, and repeated engagement. Karen also highlighted the importance of building networks and alliances to drive systemic change.
These compromises are not signs of defeat but reflections of the different tempos at which science and policy operate. While scientists may approach problems with long-term, evidence-based thinking, they often find their influence wanes once their research enters the political arena.
Reflections on the Role of Scientists in Policy Making
The round table concluded with reflections on the broader role of scientists in policymaking. The panellists acknowledged the difficulties of bridging the gap between scientific knowledge and political decision-making, particularly when dealing with long-term, complex challenges like climate change. Although the scientists on the panel were committed to influencing policy, they expressed caution about entering politics directly. Time constraints and the need for pragmatism in political negotiations were cited as potential pitfalls.
Ultimately, the discussion underscored the critical contributions that scientists can make to policymaking, while acknowledging the challenges that arise when science meets political reality. The relationship between science and policy is one of constant negotiation. Scientists provide the knowledge base, but the final decisions rest with policymakers who must consider a range of factors, including public opinion, political pressures, and economic realities.
The key takeaway from the round table was that the goal should not be perfect alignment between science and policy but finding ways to bridge the gap—through open dialogue, education, and a willingness to compromise without sacrificing the integrity of scientific research.
