Abstract
This contribution is adapted from the Keynote Address given by Dr Stephen Goldson in Brisbane in November 2013 at the OECD-sponsored conference on ‘Science into Policy, improving uptake and adoption of research’ and based on the work of the Office of the Prime Minister's Chief Science Advisor in New Zealand. It discusses the growing need for science to inform public policy as demand on resources and public expectations for evidence-informed decision-making have intensified. Without input from research-derived evidence, policy-making processes are vulnerable to intuition, personal beliefs and prevailing dogma. However, it is important to note that policy is not made by science alone, but is augmented by numerous other considerations, including societal values, financial considerations and the political leanings of the Government of the day. Science advice for public policy is no longer simple. The issues for which advice is now sought are the very issues that cause the most public concern due to their complexity and inherent uncertainties. Major public policy questions now require answers in terms of probabilities that arise from inherent scientific uncertainty and greater recognition, complex and nested systems and feedback loops. In short, scientific understanding is not as straightforward as it was once thought to be—and still is by some. The situation is complicated further by the opinion-leading influence of both traditional and social media that tend to play on fears to attract readership. Social media are now also a well-established channel for interest groups to promote their interpretations, which may or may not coincide with a rigorous analysis of the available evidence. While it is self-evident that science alone does not make policy, and that there are important social values-based inputs into the policy process, scientific knowledge production holds a privileged place because of established mechanisms of science that safeguard objectivity to the greatest extent possible: reproducible methods, peer review, reputable publication outlets, etc. When scientists are seen to be developing positions based on values that are not exclusively scientific, they lose their unique position as a source of input for policy. If not for the evidential base they can provide to policy debates, their views would offer no more or less insight than those held by any other members of the public. Scientists must serve the purpose of being honest brokers of knowledge, explicating uncertainties, but not advocating.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
In this contribution, we use the terms ‘science’, ‘evidence’ and ‘research’ quite interchangeably. We are aware of the contested definitions of these terms, but use them here as a sort of shorthand to mean knowledge derived from research that employs internationally-recognised and commonly held standards of scholarship in its methods and integrity. Also, it should be noted that these terms are inclusive of disciplines across the physical, natural and social sciences, as well as engineering.
References
Anon (2004) Aerial spraying a health risk. Grey Lynn News. http://www.oocities.org/grey44nz/moth.htm. Accessed 10 March 2014
Campbell P (2012) Frozen out: Canada’s government should free its scientists to speak to the press, as its US counterpart has. Nature. doi:10.1038/483006a
Cullen P (1990) The turbulent boundary between water science and water management (opinion). Freshw Biol 24:201–209
Douglas H (2009) Science policy and the value-free ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pennsylvania
Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1990) Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands
Funtowicz SO, Ravetz JR (1993) Science for the post-normal age. Futures 25:739–755
Gluckman PD (2014) Policy: the art of science advice to government. Nature 507(7491):163–164
Goldson SL, Gluckman PD (2014) Science, diplomacy and trade: a view from a small OECD agricultural economy. In: Davis LS, Patman R (eds) Science diplomacy: new day or false dawn?. World Scientific Publishing, Singapore (in press)
Oreskes N, Conway EM (2010) Merchants of doubt: how a handful of scientists obscured the truth on issues from tobacco smoke to global warming. Bloomsbury Publishing, USA
Pielke RA (2007) The honest broker: making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press, UK
Rittel H, Webber M (1973) Dilemmas in general theory of planning. Policy Sci 4:155–169
Suckling DM, Barrington AM, Chhagan A et al (2007) Eradication of the Australian Painted Apple Moth Teia anartoides in New Zealand: trapping, inherited sterility, and male competitiveness. In: Vreysen MJ, Robinson AS, Hendrichs J (eds) Area-wide control of insect pests: from research to field implementation. Springer, The Netherlands, pp 603–615
Sutherland W, Spiegelhalter D, Burgman M (2013) Policy: twenty tips for interpreting scientific claims (opinion). Nature 503:335
Thaler RH, Sunstein CR (2008) Nudge: Improving decisions about health, wealth, and happiness. Yale University Press, Connecticut
Tyler C (2013) Top 20 things scientists need to know about policy-making. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/dec/02/scientists-policy-governments-science. Accessed 10 March 2014
Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge the OECD Co-operative Research Programme for providing the travelling fellowship and conference funding that led to the development of this contribution.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Conference Proceedings “Science into Policy, improving uptake and adoption of research conference” 11th to 13th November 2013 in Brisbane, Australia, a conference sponsored by the OECD Co-operative Research Programme on Biological Resource Management for Sustainable Agricultural Systems.