Thread by @dyon75

Two days ago, >70 professionals from >20 countries met online to discuss
>what works (and not)?
>why?
>what's needed to make it better?
in the field of #Science4Policy in Parliaments

As part of @EU_ScienceHub's event series on #Science4Policy Across 🇪🇺 bit.ly/2Sy7Tyz

Following interventions by @WolfgangHiller (@EP_ThinkTank), @cptyler, @KarenAkerlof & Walter Peissl, participants discussed the questions in small groups with the following results. #thread

#Parliamentarians get their #science4policy from many sources - its important that your advisory body is visible and seen as neutral and trustworthy

There is a ⚖️ that needs to be made between public vs. confidential #ScienceAdvice - and an understanding that it is linked to the need for speed and amount of direct scrutiny 🔍 it will receive

The shape that #science4policy takes is also important - not only content - and needs to change to reflect the changing face/demographics of #parliament. #Podcasts #Briefs #Videoblogs

#Science4policy during #COVID19 & beyond requires a rich ecosystem of formal & informal mechanisms, proper training 4 scientists , broad input from all disciplines, not too much political polarization, politicians asking right questions, & mutual trust betw scientists&politicians

#Sci4Pol in parliament works if we address: POLITICS for liaising with changing MPs in electoral cycles & having institutional mandates for gov’t to respond to #SciAdv , SCIENCE for training and to change incentives (3) SOCIETY to bring citizens onboard of #sci4pol conversation

Europe is world leading in bringing science-based evidence to bear on parliaments. But the focus is typically on technological issues and needs to evolve to capture a wider range of evidence for a wider range of policy issues.

Good science advice in parliaments should be a collaboration between academia and parliament – but there is need for intermediaries who balance proactive and responsive advice.

Some countries don’t have science advisory systems for parliaments. They need to work with the existing research and policy landscape, and develop systems that work in their context.

It is important to train scientists on how parliaments work & how to provide evidence in a useful way. Parliamentary staff should receive training on research methods and evidence use. Politicians and many senior scientists are not interested in these kinds of training courses.

Pairing schemes are good a raising awareness, but are not valuable for ‘science advice’. They ignore the importance of intermediaries (boundary spanners) between generators of knowledge and decision makers.

Bringing science & parliamentarians together is challenging: needs patience, communication skills, understanding of political landscape & realities, investment of time

But there are ways to get a foothold: identify a champion, work with advisors to reach members, start small; perhaps start with policy-based activity.

Science/Parliament interfaces present a fragmented landscape of formal and informal processes, very context specific. Need 4 institutionalization (stable budget, place in the policymaking process, capabilities) & a receptive political culture

Expert auditions by committees are a widespread mechanism but often partisan and largely performative. Evidence is always framed by interests, but needs to be done in a plural and transparent way

Information given to parliamentarians needs to be neutral and independent, trusted by all parties, honest brokers have central role.

Transformation or adjusting of existing information sharing platforms, including international ones for parliamentarians.

Scientist needs to understand parliamentarian and vice versa.

An essential step in strengthening parliamentary science advice seems to be facilitating, structuring their demands/questions, and helping them ask the "right" question to scientists.

We also have to accept that regardless the value or importance of science advice for policy, parliament(arian)s sometimes just want to take (their) decisions.

We should take advantage of the perspectives of visiting international researchers in (parliamentary) science advice for policy.

Science advice should be provided at the right time, and it needs to be clear and concise.

Deconstructing questions in science advice is essential for its successful delivery. The scientific and political components need to be identified and separated.

A key requirement for well-functioning science advice is an active network that understands the realities of policy-making.

Parliaments are at the downstream of policy design process. This reality needs to be recognised when considering the specific roles researchers should have in parliamentary science advice.

Cross-cutting issues, like SDG, will benefit from horizontal coordination and interlinkages between #ScienceAdvice units/bodies in parliaments

The human dimension is relevant: direct contacts between #ScienceAdvice units/analysts and MPs/MEPs can increase effectiveness of the science-policy-interface in parliaments

Science and knowledge communication are key success factors for LSA. Therefore, science advice bodies in parliaments need to actively promote evidence literacy of their clients

Potential politicisation of evidence and experts in the polarised parliamentary and public debates requires high quality and high level of neutrality of advice through #ScienceAdvice bodies

This is the rich but necessarily non-exhaustive harvest of the second workshop in the @EU_ScienceHub workshop series.

More info: bit.ly/2Sy7Tyz

Next workshop: 4/11/2020 #Science4Policy by academies of science