Science informing Policy – a health warning for the environment (original) (raw)

How to increase the potential policy impact of environmental science research

Environmental Sciences Europe, 2015

This article highlights eight common issues that limit the policy impact of environmental science research. The article also discusses what environmental scientists can do to resolve these issues, including (1) optimising the directness of their study so that it examines similar processes/populations/environments/ecosystems to that of policy interest; (2) using the most powerful study design possible, to increase confidence in the identified causal mechanisms; (3) selecting a sufficient sample size, to reduce the chance of false positives/negatives and increase policy-makers' confidence in extrapolation of the findings; (4) minimizing the risk of bias through randomization of study units to treatment and control groups (reducing the risk of selection bias), blinding of study units and investigators (reducing the risk of performance and detection bias), following-up study units from enrolment to study completion (reducing the risk of attrition bias) and prospectively registering the study on a publically-available platform (reducing the risk of reporting and publication bias); (5) proving that statistical analyses meet test assumptions by reporting the results of statistical assumption checks, ideally publishing full datasets online in an open-access format; (6) publishing the research whether statistically significant or not, policy-makers are just as interested in the negative or insignificant results as they are in the positive results; (7) making the study easy to find and use, the title and abstract of an article are of high importance in determining whether articles are examined in detail or not and used to inform policy; (8) contributing towards systematic reviews on environmental topics, to provide policy-makers with comprehensive, reproducible and updateable syntheses of all the evidence on a given topic.

Is Science on a Path to Irrelevance in Policy and Management

Society of American Foresters - Plenary Address, 2018

People typically expect that scientific information provided by interest and advocacy groups is infused with policy preferences, and for many people, the same skepticism exists for media-provided science. Increasingly, however, public skepticism has extended to scientists themselves (i.e., the prevalence of “advocacy masquerading as science”). Even some experienced managers and policy makers (i.e., knowledgeable “consumers of science”) fail to recognize policy bias when it is presented under the guise of scientific information. For example, a policy bias toward “natural” or “pristine” ecosystems (i.e., those ecosystems unaffected by humans) is a common misuse of science in natural resource management. Using such “science” (i.e., normative science) in policy deliberations is not only a misuse of science, it is insidious because the consumer of the information is often unaware of the hidden policy slant. Public confidence that scientific information is technically accurate, policy relevant, and politically unbiased is central to informed resolution of natural resource policy and management issues that are often contentious, divisive, and litigious. Science must remain a cornerstone of public policy decisions about natural resource issues, but I offer cautionary guidance to scientists: become involved with policy issues, but play the proper role.

Unlocking successful sustainability : innovative communication strategies for science based policy

2016

Environmental policy should be made up of scientific evidence. This thesis paper supports science based policy and its formulation through innovative communication strategies. It is important to be innovative in communicating science when dealing with the policy community as there could be confrontations owing to the nature of relation between science and policy. This is where the professional environment science communicator surfaces to function as a bridge between the science and policy communities in order to ensure the furthering of science into policy. Seen from the point of view of sustainability science, the role of a science communicator is imperative towards communicating science and advocating for science-evidence based policies. The initiative of the professional environment science communicator will have a future impact on the way bills are drafted. Hence, allowing this thesis to make its way into sustainability science. In context, a science communicator is a boundary s...

Policy windows for the environment: Tips for improving the uptake of scientific knowledge

Environmental Science & Policy, 2017

Scientific knowledge is considered to be an important factor (alongside others) in environmental policy-making. However, the opportunity for environmentalists to influence policy can often occur within short, discrete time windows. Therefore, a piece of research may have a negligible or transformative policy influence depending on when it is presented. These 'policy windows' are sometimes predictable, such as those dealing with conventions or legislation with a defined renewal period, but are often hard to anticipate. We describe four ways that environmentalists can respond to policy windows and increase the likelihood of knowledge uptake: 1) foresee (and create) emergent windows, 2) respond quickly to opening windows, 3) frame research in line with appropriate windows, and 4) persevere in closed windows. These categories are closely linked; efforts to enhance the incorporation of scientific knowledge into policy need to harness mechanisms within each. We illustrate the main points with reference to nature conservation, but the principles apply widely.

Science and Scientists in the U.S. Environmental Policy Process

The International Journal of Science in Society, 2009

Many policy makers, academics, interest groups, environmental managers, and interested citizens have called for a more science-based environmental policy. The assumption is that including scientists and scientific information will improve the quality of complex policy decisions. Others have argued, however, that while science is an important source of information for environmental policy, scientists should only supply the public and policy-makers relevant information and avoid advocating for preferred policy outcomes. They argue that scientists can lose their credibility if they cross the line between science and policy. We investigate this debate with a 2007 U.S. study examining the attitudes of scientists, environmental managers, interest groups, and the public concerning the role of science and scientists in environmental policy. In interviews and surveys with members of these four groups, we find that there are significant differences among groups about what constitutes science, including the acceptability of positivism; a preference among many respondents for research scientists to work closely with managers to interpret and integrate scientific findings into management decisions; and, for those respondents with positivist orientations, some interest in scientific advocacy and decisionmaking by ecological scientists. Ecological scientists, on the other hand, are more doubtful of their ability to provide scientific answers and also more reluctant to engage directly in policy processes than others would prefer them to be.