Scientists Need to Engage in Policy More Like Policymakers
Scientists have a lot of value to add to policymaking, but are not always highly effective in making that outcome a reality. One key reason is that they approach policy by attempting to recreate how the scientific enterprise operates. Getting scientists out of their comfort zone and into the mindset of policymakers would be much more effective.
It is no surprise that scientists generally tend to see the world through the lens of academia. While such an approach can be intentional or not, it leads to a secondary challenge. Namely, it sets an undertone among scientists that if policymakers thought and operated more like them, many of the problems we face could be easily addressed. Such thinking is not just generally untrue, but also unproductive. A number of examples of ways scientists tend to recreate what they know, as well as suggestions for an alternate path forward, are offered here.
Engaging with Existing Efforts is Generally Better than Creating New Ones: Scientists are used to working under science-led efforts. However, there are many existing government and nonprofit structures that would benefit from the input and expertise of scientists. From a logistical point of view, trying to imbed a new, science-led program is often impractical in government. If you’re trying to transition to the science policy space from the lab, first try to see where you might fit before concluding that the existing options aren’t what you think is needed from a scientific perspective.
Local Policy is Best Done Locally: Efforts to have scientists support local decision-making has gained substantial interest in recent years. The approach has largely been to extend top-down efforts by national-level nonprofit organizations/scientific societies. Laterally transferring this approach to “local engagement” can easily miss the multitude of subtle, diverse issues municipalities face. It can also suffer from not being able to generate the kind of interpersonal networks needed to “act locally.” To this end, we should encourage scientists to think of themselves beyond their professional roles; i.e., as community members first. In this case, bottom-up experiential learning occurs by showing up at community events and listening to their neighbors, instead of being taught in the more traditional academic course format.
Let Policymakers Lead: The scientific community talks a lot about “listening to experts.” This phrasing seems to equate having academic training with being an expert in, essentially, everything. In the day-to-day sense, science policy is often more about policy and/or constituents needs first and science second. This is why it can be particularly challenging for local science policy groups, led by early career scientists, to find their way. Having direct insight from actual current or former policymakers, or building hands-on learning through collaborations, would much more effectively bridge these gaps.
Read the Room Instead of Presenting the Findings: Evidence-based policy is a term that is used and misused in many different ways. To scientists, it often focuses more narrowly on peer-reviewed scientific studies. By extension, the role of a scientist is the one who “gives talks on the research findings,” akin to presentations during group meetings or scientific conferences. For better or worse, sometimes the world’s science best doesn’t make for great policy. In fact, evidence-based decision-making to a policymaker often means weighing a much larger variety of factors, including constituent needs, what is politically possible at a particular time, and how a given decision can affect their chances of reelection. Such factors are also actual “evidence” and, in many cases, not secondary to “the science.” Shifting how scientists view their role in policy from “lecturers” to “negotiators” can produce a better overall outcome.
Generate Content in Formats Policymakers Use: Peer-reviewed science policy journals seem to be the newest trend in academia these days. While they do allow early-career scientists opportunities to hone their communication skills, they are not places policymakers go for information. They also set an echo-chamber-like precedent of directing students to try to engage with policymakers by writing for an audience of other scientists. Local newspapers often are looking for pieces, and local policymakers read for/write in these publications. Submitting to these places instead should be the overarching goal. While some may argue that they are not “peer-reviewed,” they do follow the long-standing journalistic tradition of using professional editors. Such a process also allows for timely publication (days or weeks vs. months or more for scientific journals) of newsworthy science policy issues.
Value Science Policy by Paying People for their Labor: Scientific research grants often pay proportionally more for equipment and materials than actual labor. Such an approach appears to also be trickling down to how we fund early career science policy work. “Microgrants,” to fund early career science policy projects, often go one step further by not allowing any labor costs. In fact, with smaller monetary grants, labor, including writing the proposal itself, generally accounts for a larger proportion of the work than for awards of higher values. Giving people financial support to be policy interns, paying directly for their labor to the extent legally/contractually allowable, would not just be a better way to use these funds, but also indicate greater academic endorsement of science policy as a career path.
Adapt to Policy Norms: Adopting and consistently using the terminology, methods of communication, and overall culture of policy, instead of replicating how we engage in science, would help scientists have more influence. For example, policy memos are sometimes generated by academics in the form of “mini research publications,” which can lead to unmet expectations when shared with policymakers.
Policymaking is Inherently a Group Effort: The way scientific research is structured, you can often have a lot of say over defining at least a piece of your own research agenda. In policy, you can generally only be a part of a large-scale challenge involving lots of stakeholders. This means increasing you efficacy by switching your perspective to that of a productive team member instead of trying to carve out your own domain in the policy arena.
Learn Core Policy Skills: Success in policy generally depends on mastering tasks that aren’t used frequently, if at all, in science. Instead of just disregarding them as less-worthy academic pursuits, scientists interested in policy should seriously work to learn how to campaign, message, use social media/effectively disseminate content, and fundraise. While just dabbling in these may seem harmless, not doing them well may also adversely impact one’s intended outcomes.
When you travel to other countries, adapting to their customs is usually not just polite, but also an effective way to navigate during your journey. Such an analogy also generally applies when attempting to cross from one professional space to another. Too often, academics revert to what they know by recreating the norms of the scientific enterprise. This can leave us “on the outside, looking in.”
Nancy Holt leads Science for New York (Sci4NY), an effort that aims to have policymakers and scientists work more closely together through project-based interaction in New York City. She holds a PhD in Physical Chemistry from the University of California, Berkeley and was a former AAAS Diplomacy Fellow at the U.S. Department of State. On Twitter @Sci4NY
