Abstract
The question of how scientists should engage in policymaking has spurred both pragmatic and philosophical debates for decades. Scant empirical research addressing how experts perceive the different roles scientists might play complicates efforts to resolve the debate. Further, these literatures focus on Western developed nations, largely ignoring the efforts of governments worldwide to build science advisory capacity. In a survey of global legislative experts, we investigate their preferences and rationales for how scientists can be helpful to policy processes in legislatures, testing for effects of expertise and national development on role choice. The majority (79.2%) of respondents—science advice researchers, providers of scientific information to government, and users of scientific information within government—said that scientists should work closely with policymakers and others to integrate scientific results in policy decisions. The next most preferred role was that of reporting and interpreting results (53.0%). The primary reasons the respondents gave for scientists’ engagement were to improve decision-making (40.5%) and communication of science, whether through (two-way) dialogues (34.2%) or (one-way) explanations (18.4%). Few said that scientists should advocate for specific policies (18.6%). Respondents from developing nations were more accepting of ‘advocacy’ roles and less supportive of scientists that solely publish in academic journals than experts in developed countries. These experts’ preference for highly integrative work by scientists in policy suggests a global re-envisioning of the relationship between the science and policy communities even within highly political contexts. Institutional support from government and academia will be required to support these shifts.
Data and code availability
Data and code are available in the osf.io repository, https://osf.io/phj85/?view_only=0d3e7e4100914441aa03f9b5b8136ad4
References
AAAS. (2020). American Association for the Advancement of Science [home page]. https://www.aaas.org/
Akerlof, K., Tyler, C., Foxen, S. E., Heath, E., Gual Soler, M., Allegra, A., Cloyd, E. T., Hird, J. A., Nelson, S. M., Nguyen, C. T., Gonnella, C. J., Berigan, L. A., Abeledo, C. R., Al-Yakoub, T. A., Andoh, H. F., dos Santos Boeira, L., van Boheemen, P., Cairney, P., Cook-Deegan, R., Costigan, G., Dhimal, M., Di Marco, M. H., Dube, D., Egbetokun, A., El Kharraz, J., Galindo, L. E., Ferguson, M. W. J., Franco, J., Graves, Z., Hayter, E., Hernández-Mondragón, A. C., Hobbs, A. D., Holden, K. L., IJsselmuiden, C., Jegede, A. S., Krstic, S. B., Mbonyintwali, J.-M., Mengesha, S. D., Michalek, T., Nagano, H., Nentwich, M., Nouri, A., Ntale, P. D., Ogundele, O. M., Omenma, J. T., Pau, L.-F., Peha, J. M., Prescott, E. M., Ramos-Vielba, I., Roberts, R., Sandifer, P. A., Saner, M. A., Sanganyado, E., Sanni, M., Santillán, O., Stine, D. D., Straf, M. L., Tangney, P., Washbourne, C.-L., Winderickx, W., & Yarime, M. (2019). A collaboratively derived international research agenda on legislative science advice. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0318-6
Barkan, J. D. (2009). Legislative power in emerging African democracies. Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Bednarek, A. T., Wyborn, C., Cvitanovic, C., Meyer, R., Colvin, R. M., Addison, P. F. E., Close, S. L., Curran, K., Farooque, M., Goldman, E., Hart, D., Mannix, H., McGreavy, B., Parris, A., Posner, S., Robinson, C., Ryan, M., & Leith, P. (2018). Boundary spanning at the science–policy interface: The practitioners’ perspectives. Sustainability Science, 13(4), 1175–1183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0550-9
Biermann, F. (2002). Institutions for scientific advice: Global environmental assessments and their influence in developing countries. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 8(2), 195–219.
Bornmann, L. (2012). Measuring the societal impact of research. EMBO Reports, 13(8), 673–676. https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2012.99
Bornmann, L., & Mutz, R. (2015). Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(11), 2215–2222. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23329
Donner, S. D. (2014). Finding your place on the science – advocacy continuum: An editorial essay. Climatic Change, 124(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1108-1
Douglas, H. E. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press.
Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage Publications.
Gieryn, T. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. University of Chicago Press.
Grunwald, A. (2018). Technology assessment in practice and theory. Routledge.
Guimarães, M. H., Pohl, C., Bina, O., & Varanda, M. (2019). Who is doing inter- and transdisciplinary research, and why? An empirical study of motivations, attitudes, skills, and behaviours. Futures, 112, 102441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.102441
Guston, D. (1993). The essential tension in science and democracy. Social Epistemology, 7(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691729308578676
Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), 399–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390102600401
Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.
Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77–89.
INASP. (2016). Approaches to developing capacity for the use of evidence in policy making. INASP. https://www.inasp.info/sites/default/files/2018-04/VY%20impact%20report.pdf
Ingold, K., & Gschwend, M. (2014). Science in policy-making: Neutral experts or strategic policy-makers? West European Politics, 37(5), 993–1018. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2014.920983
Jasanoff, S. (1987). Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science, 17(2), 195–230.
Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press.
Jasanoff, S. (2012). Science and public reason. Routledge.
Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2014). The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Foundations, evolution, and ongoing research. In P. A. Sabatier & C. M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 183–224). Avalon Publishing.
Kenny, C., Washbourne, C.-L., Tyler, C., & Blackstock, J. J. (2017). Legislative science advice in Europe: The case for international comparative research. Palgrave Communications, 3.
Kotcher, J. E., Myers, T. A., Vraga, E. K., Stenhouse, N., & Maibach, E. W. (2017). Does engagement in advocacy hurt the credibility of scientists? Results from a randomized national survey experiment. Environmental Communication, 11(3), 415–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1275736
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (2nd ed). Sage.
Lach, D., List, P., Steel, B., & Shindler, B. (2003). Advocacy and credibility of ecological scientists in resource decisionmaking: A regional study. BioScience, 53(2), 170–178. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0170:AACOES]2.0.CO;2
Lee, K. N. (1994). Compass and gyroscope: Integrating science and politics for the environment. Island Press.
Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.
Moore, G. E. (1965). Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics, 38(8), 114–117.
Morgan, M. G., & Peha, J. M. (Eds.). (2003). Science and technology advice for Congress. Resources for the Future.
Muhonen, R., Benneworth, P., & Olmos-Peñuela, J. (2020). From productive interactions to impact pathways: Understanding the key dimensions in developing SSH research societal impact. Research Evaluation, 29(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvz003
Nelson, M. P., & Vucetich, J. A. (2009). On advocacy by environmental scientists: What, whether, why, and how. Conservation Biology, 23(5), 1090–1101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01250.x
Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit, and authoritarian populism. Cambridge University Press.
Pielke, R. A. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press.
Scientific integrity in federal agencies, U.S. House of Representatives, 116th U.S. Congress (2019) (testimony of Roger A. Pielke). https://science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Pielke%20Testimony1.pdf
Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.
Runkle, D., & Frankel, M. S. (2012). Advocacy in science. Summary of a workshop convened by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington DC, October 17–18, 2011. American Association for the Advancement of Science. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/s3fs-public/reports/Advocacy_Workshop_Report_FINAL.pdf
Sanni, M., Oluwatope, O., Adeyeye, A., & Egbetokun, A. (2016). Evaluation of the quality of science, technology and innovation advice available to lawmakers in Nigeria. Palgrave Communications, 2, 16095. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.95
Santillán-García, A., Oliver, E., Grigorian Shamagian, L., Climent, A. M., & Melchor, L. (2020). #CienciaenelParlamento: La necesidad de una oficina parlamentaria de asesoramiento científico y tecnológico. Gaceta Sanitaria. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2019.08.004
Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7(5), 385–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.001
Schneider, F., Giger, M., Harari, N., Moser, S., Oberlack, C., Providoli, I., Schmid, L., Tribaldos, T., & Zimmermann, A. (2019). Transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations: Three generic mechanisms of impact generation. Environmental Science & Policy, 102, 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.017
Spruijt, P., Knol, A. B., Petersen, A. C., & Lebret, E. (2016). Differences in views of experts about their role in particulate matter policy advice: Empirical evidence from an international expert consultation. Environmental Science & Policy, 59, 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.02.003
Spruijt, P., Knol, A. B., Petersen, A. C., & Lebret, E. (2019). Expert views on their role as policy advisor: Pilot study for the cases of electromagnetic fields, particulate matter, and antimicrobial resistance. Risk Analysis, 39(5), 968–974. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13224
Spruijt, P., Knol, A. B., Torenvlied, R., & Lebret, E. (2013). Different roles and viewpoints of scientific experts in advising on environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 33(10), 1844–1857. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12020
Spruijt, P., Knol, A. B., Vasileiadou, E., Devilee, J., Lebret, E., & Petersen, A. C. (2014). Roles of scientists as policy advisers on complex issues: A literature review. Environmental Science & Policy, 40, 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.03.002
Steel, B., Lach, D., List, P., & Shindler, B. (2001). The role of scientists in the natural resource and environmental policy process: A comparison of Canadian and American publics. Journal of Environmental Systems, 28(2), 133–155.
Tyler, C. (2013). Scientific advice in Parliament. In R. Doubleday & J. Wilsdon (Eds.), Future directions for scientific advice in Whitehall. University of Cambridge’s Centre for Science and Policy; Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) and ESRC STEPS Centre at the University of Sussex; Alliance for Useful Evidence; Institute for Government; Sciencewise-ERC.
United Nations Statistics Division. (2019). Methodology: Standard country or area codes for statistical use (M49). United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/
Zucman, G. (2019). Global wealth inequality. Annual Review of Economics, 11(1), 109–138. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080218-025852
Funding
This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1842117.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflicts of interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Akerlof, K.L., Allegra, A., Nelson, S. et al. Global perspectives on scientists’ roles in legislative policymaking. Policy Sci 55, 351–367 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09457-3
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09457-3