You would think that with so much scientific information around, policy decisions safeguarding humans and the environment would be well informed and efficiently focusing on the most pressing issues and taking into account the most up to date research. Yet we all know that is not often the case.

In reality, political processes are often sparked by one or many stakeholders - i.e., environmental NGOs, industries, companies – becoming aware of a problem or being upset about laws and regulations that they want to change. The following political decision would be at best informed by scientific knowledge, but just as often lands in solutions driven by stakeholders that serve other agendas, are cheap for the industry to implement or do not upset members or voters. For that reason, it is fundamental that not only official agencies and those in place to guide political decisions, but also other institutions and stakeholders - so called message carriers - are kept updated on recent scientific developments.

Many universities are really good at communicating new research to the public. Communicators put out press releases when there are new dissertation theses or groundbreaking articles out. They arrange open seminars and even conferences on important topics. But there is often a mismatch in time between when an issue is up for discussion at the policy level, and when research on that problem has been conducted. Hence solutions, often need to stem from existing (and possibly old) research. This is where “knowledge brokers” come in.  

According to Wikipedia, knowledge brokers “link producers of research evidence to users of research evidence as a means of facilitating collaboration to identify issues, solve problems, and promote evidence-informed decision making.” To be able to do this a knowledge broker needs to be close both to research and policy, not only at an institutional level, but at a personal level. Preferably they should also have good knowledge about political processes and stakeholders as well as the issue at hand, in order to be trustworthy. Because in the end we are all humans and we all tend to listen to people we trust.

A knowledge broker, if successful, can help universities, researchers and communicators to transfer relevant research results and target communication to the right audience at the right time. The audience are normally policy makers and stakeholders. Remember, policy issues often stem from a number of unhappy stakeholders who are concerned, hopefully at the same time, creating a common debate that policy makers can’t ignore.

In a recent study Lessons from bright-spots for advancing knowledge exchange at the interface of marine science and policy by Denis Karcher et al, 37 researchers from different universities around the world analyzed 25 examples of successful knowledge exchange between marine science and policy and management. The study examined, among other things, what initiated the knowledge exchange, what its objectives were, how it was done, what was achieved and what contributed to its success. Some of the most important factors success factors were:

1.     Personal relationships between scientists and policy makers with early and clear communication

2.     Good timing and an open policy window

3.     Supportive and flexible funding for research institutions to be able to engage in policy work

Two examples highlighted in the study comes from the Stockholm University Baltic Sea Centre (BSC) where timely and targetet communication by knowledge brokers has managed to influence policy. The first example concerns microplastics, where the BSC communicated about risks with and effects of microplastics for the marine environment at the same time as it was starting to becoming a hot topic on the political agenda, pushed by mainly environmental NGOs. Researchers from the BSC compiled scientific knowledge in an easily accessible form (policy brief), communicated it in the media and participated in multiple meetings with politicians, authorities, industry representatives and other stakeholders. Eventually, this contributed to Sweden introducing a national ban on microplastics in rinse-off personal care products. This, in turn, influenced the ECHA, the European Chemicals Agency, to propose even broader restrictions on microplastics.

The other example focuses on steering actions to combat eutrophication to the most efficient ones. In Sweden, policy makers were interested in growing mussels in the Baltic Sea in order to capture nitrogen and phosphorous – the key nutrients creating eutrophication. This solution was considered easy to implement at a local level, a lot cheaper than upgrading waste water treatment plants and less political than demanding actions from farmers. But research has shown that mussel farming is not efficient to combat eutrophication, but might of course have other values for the society, like creating jobs. BSC, with a solid, long-term work on eutrophication, did extensive communication work on the expected impact of large-scale mussel farming.

For the Baltic Sea Centre, knowledge exchange and the dissemination of knowledge and scientific results to different actors in society are key functions, and included in the BSC's statutes. The BSC is hence composed of both researchers, communicators and knowledge brokers. According to Marie Löf, researcher at the BSC and one of the authors of the study, the success of the BSC is very much based on the fact that the knowledge brokers have long-term relationships with politicians and other stakeholders and are in on-going discussion with them on policy issues. Most universities and institutions don’t have that luxury.

This is where supportive and flexible funding comes in. The Baltic Sea Centre is a result of Stockholm University wanting not only to strengthen the marine research but also to improve researchers’ interaction with policy and society. The BSC has been running for almost 10 years, with policy analysts in the team since 2016 and by now has strong support both from university leadership, researchers, policymakers and stakeholders benefitting from its work. The continuous and flexible funding is fundamental since policy processes on a single issue often go on for years and communication needs to be sustained. Unfortunately, this kind of funding is presently rare – something we at Baltic Sea Center hope will change.