The independence or autonomy of science advisory bodies is often seen as crucial for their ability to produce high-quality advice and contribute to evidence-informed policy-making. Independence allows advisory bodies to produce thorough and objective analyses and evidence-informed recommendations. It prevents undue meddling from politicians and bureaucrats, which could bias the advice. It also strengthens the legitimacy and credibility of science advice arrangements with stakeholders and the broader public.

At the same time, proximity and relevance to policy-making is needed for advice to be influential. Science advisory mechanisms that are located closer to decision-makers bring advisors into contact with the practical realities of policy-making and the experiences and expertise of bureaucrats. These bodies are better integrated in the policy process, and bureaucrats and political leaders are likely to feel greater ownership to their analysis and advice, resulting in greater influence.

How to navigate the narrow path between being compromised on the one hand and being irrelevant on the other? While the tension between independence and relevance is not one that can be resolved, discussions with science advice practitioners from all over Europe within the Community of Practice on Evidence-Informed Policymaking revealed that there are different ways of balancing these concerns. 

Division of labour

One is through a division of labour within the science advice body, where some parts of the advisory mechanism guarantee scientific independence while other parts ensure policy relevance. A good example is the Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM) of the European Commission. Within this mechanism, SAPEA and the Chief Science Advisors review and synthesize evidence and formulate policy recommendations in an independent manner, whereas the SAM Secretariat located within the European Commission is charged with ensuring the relevance of the advice to the Commission’s policy agenda. 

Co-creation and its opportunities and challenges

Another way is through co-creation. One participant described how the prevalent thinking in the science advisory body where they worked had slowly evolved from ‘science advice 1.0’, where policy-makers and stakeholders were kept at a safe distance, towards ‘science advice 2.0’, an advisory process characterized by collaboration and inter-dependence where policy-makers and other relevant institutions were actively involved throughout the process – from the formulation of advisory topics and questions to the final advice.

However, another participant described the difficulties in convincing scientists to engage in genuine co-creation with ministries. Researchers were often afraid of losing their independence and being micro-managed by bureaucrats. Some even described feeling trapped when their advice was misused. One answer to these concerns was to design the co-creation process in a way that ensured clear roles and objective yet relevant advice. Yet, as a practitioner pointed out, co-creating advice is equally challenging for policy-makers. Politicians and bureaucrats need to carefully navigate the science advice process, which includes a clear awareness of their own role and its limits.

In other words, both within the world of science and the world of policy-making there is a need for a better understanding of how the other world works. A nice illustration: In 2013, two scientists published a piece in Nature that was picked up by the Guardian, which was entitled ‘Top 20 things politicians need to know about science’. A few weeks later, the director of the UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology responded with the ‘Top 20 things scientists need to know about policy-making’.

Call to action

The tension between independence and relevance in science advice will not go away. To handle this tension, learning from each other’s experiences is crucial. 

I therefore invite the members of the community to contribute to a collective mapping of good practices for balancing independence and relevance. This mapping aims to cover both the formal design of science advice structures and the informal practices for balancing these concerns.

The mapping will consist of two steps: (1) collect good practices through a short survey among members of the community of practice and (2) gain a deeper understanding of these practices and the conditions under which they can be effective through interviews with selected members.

Please get in touch if you would like to help design and carry out the survey or interviews or if you are eager to share your experiences!