On 2 December 2022, the Czech Presidency invited the EU-27 research ministers to discuss “science as an instrument to facilitate policymaking in the Member States” during the meeting of the Competitiveness Council of the EU. The debate followed the publication of the European Commission Staff Working Document “Supporting and connecting policymaking in the Member States with scientific research” (SWD(2022) 346 final). In this blog, Kristian Krieger and Lorenzo Melchor sum up the main points raised and their implications for different actors at the science-policy interface.

Timely debate

Today’s policymakers face an array of complex policy issues, from global pandemics, the climate crisis, and energy costs to technological advances in artificial intelligence and genetics. Responding to these has become unimaginable without scientific expertise, in particular in the wake of the COVID-19 crisis with the highly visible role scientists assumed in public.

And yet, this is easier said than done – it is a political challenge in an environment where evidence and arguments are contested by disinformation and societies are increasingly polarised, as well as an institutional challenge on how to bring the two distinctive worlds of science and policymaking together.

On 2 December, the Czech Presidency of the Council of the EU brought together for a policy debate in Brussels those decision-makers from the EU Member States that can play a critical role in addressing both the political and institutional challenges to building robust, interconnected science-for-policy ecosystem in Europe: the research ministers of the EU-27.

During the debate, all 27 Member States took the floor and emphasised the timeliness and relevance of the debate. Many also welcomed the Commission’s analysis as a starting point for the discussion.

Public trust in science as foundational to evidence-informed policymaking

One fundamental challenge identified in the discussion is that the trust of citizens in governments and policymaking benefits from the inclusion of scientific evidence. What’s needed for this virtuous relation between science and policymaking to emerge?

• Member States saw the need for some principles to underpin the relationship. Many Member States underlined the need to clarify the distinctive roles of scientists (inform and evaluation) versus policymakers (deliberate and decide) in policymaking. Others stressed the relevance of scientific integrity and excellence, as well as transparency and openness in science advice processes. 
• Member States also mentioned the importance of concrete measures to support trust in science, such as public science education and communication, as well as efforts to improve accessibility and dissemination of research, including in local languages.

These principles and efforts were seen as particularly important to counter misinformation.

Member States are already investing in science-for-policy capacity…

Member States took the opportunity of the debate to showcase some of the investments into science for policy they have undertaken in the past and plan for the future.

These include:

• setting up and running various inter-ministerial networks of officers responsible for science advice or research and innovation (R&I) and organisations with the mandate to advise governments (academies; advisory councils, boards and committees; national laboratories; future labs and more) or parliaments;
• new policy initiatives and R&I strategies, as well as funding programmes that support science for policy; and
• training programmes for policymakers and researchers in competences relevant for science for policy.

These initiatives demonstrate that research ministries are keen and capable to directly support science-for-policy capacity, as well as create an environment conducive to evidence-informed policymaking.

… but further support by the Commission would be welcome.

Yet, the Member States expressed the need for support and coordination from the European Commission. Many acknowledged already existing instruments and practices at the EU that Member States can benefit from, including

• the Better Regulation agenda as a source of best practice and tools to increase the use of science in policymaking;
• the Technical Support Instrument to help build capacity for evidence use inside public administrations;
• the Policy Support Instrument for mutual learning exercises;
• training offers in science for policy for policymakers and scientists; and
• Horizon Missions as vehicle to connect scientific communities with sectoral policymaking networks.

Others asked the Commission to help, among other issues:

• strengthen networks such as the European Science Advisors Forum;
• expand programmes to support inter-sectoral mobility from academia into public administration, e.g. in the context of the Marie Skłodowska Curie Actions;
• instigate debate and dialogue via the Science-for-Policy Ecosystems workshops, and system reforms via multi-country projects that promote evaluation and mutual learning; and
• elaborate on and implement certain research policies, such as knowledge valorisation or open science.

Not only research ministers.

While the research ministers recognised the critical role of their own houses in promoting science for policy, they also stressed the importance to take the debate on science-for-policy capacity building to cross-sectoral and sectoral ministries. In fact, some Member States stressed the importance for other Council configurations, with the respective ministers, to take up this debate and reflect on how to develop robust, science-for-policy ecosystems in their fields.

What are the take-away messages for science and policymaking?

What can we learn from the debate?

There is a broad, pan-European agreement that today’s policymaking, in its effectiveness to deal with complex challenges and its public support, can benefit from a better use of scientific knowledge. 

Building the institutional and individual capacity for this needs to be understood as a collective task, i.e. not one that Member States can do on their own only on their level and not one that research ministers can do without the support and investment by other ministries and non-governmental stakeholders.

In short, the ministerial debate has underlined that there are many different pieces to building capacity for science-for-policy. Science-for-policy ecosystems are complex and diverse compositions of structures and actors, processes, norms and rules within and across Member States and governance levels.

While the task of strengthening these ecosystems sometimes appears daunting, a more positive perspective on it is that everyone involved—whether on the policy or scientific side, or in-between—can contribute to changing the systems for the better. These changes may be based on building one’s own competences, expanding the mission of one’s institution, setting up new boundary organisations and networks, and shaping research policy towards encouraging a better connection between science and policymaking, among others.

***

Please also see the website of the Council for information.

The recordings of the policy debate can be found here.