On 7 September 2021, the JRC - jointly with the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors and Science Advice for Policy by European Academies (SAPEA) - organised a satellite event on "Science advice for energy policy: who's afraid of epistemic diversity?" linked to the 4th International Conference on Science Advice to Government. 

 The session sought to address the question "What are the challenges in organising, generating and absorbing interdisciplinary science for policy?", as experienced in the complex field of energy policy.

In the interactive format of a "fishbowl" panel, with a regularly changing panel composition, academic experts from different disciplines engaged with policymakers and audience members to discuss lessons from their practice of advising policymakers.

Experts

• Thomas Bauwens, senior researcher and lecturer at Utrecht University's Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development;
• David Mair, Head of Unit at Joint Research Centre;
• Tom van Ierland, Head of Strategy and Economic Assessment Unit, DG CLIMA;
• Clark Miller, professor in the School for the Future of Innovation in Society and Director of the Center for Energy & Society at Arizona State University;
• Nebojsa Nakicenovic, Deputy Chair of the European Commission's Group of Chief Scientific Advisors;
• Kristian Nielsen, research associate at the Cambridge Social Decision-Making Lab in the Department of Psychology;
• Sebastien Renaud, Deputy Head of Unit for governance and public administration, DG REFORM;
• Jennie Stephens, Director of the School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs and the Dean’s Professor of Sustainability Science & Policy at Northeastern University;
• Tuula Teeri, President of the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences, Chair of Euro-CASE;
• Jacopo Torriti, Professor of Energy Economics and Policy, School of the Built Environment, University of Reading;
• Diana Ürge-Vorsatz, Professor at the Department of Environmental Sciences and Policy Central European University, and member of SAPEA energy working group.

Interesting key lessons

The discussion brought some interesting key lessons to the fore:

Epistemic diversity is essential for developing a shared language, trust in advice, and policy impact

LESSON 1

Epistemic diversity is critical for science advice due to the complexity of policy challenges such as the energy transformation or COVID-19.

LESSON 2

Epistemic diversity is also critical for bringing a broad range of aspects and perspectives into the policy debate. In the case of energy policy, social sciences introduce social (rather than technological) innovation, #EnergyJustice, and #EnergyDemocracy to the debate.

LESSON 3

 Achieving epistemic diversity in science advice is hard work for those involved: Scientists have strong incentives to specialise and remain within their narrow community. A common language needs to be found, sometimes requiring simplification or the identification of shared conceptual foundations.

LESSON 4

 Processes of interdisciplinary science advice also requires epistemic humility and epistemic democracy, i.e. that all disciplines have an equal standing rather than a hierarchical relationship (social science serving engineering, e.g. help with social acceptance of technological fixes).

We should treat each of the contributing disciplines as mutually fertilizing rather than one serving the other

LESSON 5

 Epistemic diversity, if focused on bringing together different disciplines only, is too narrow. Diversity of backgrounds and values are vital because they shape political views and scientific perspectives on energy policy problems.

We know that when women, people of colour and other are in a position of power and become part of the decision making process, we bring different experiences, different priorities, different perceptions of risk, and that shapes what really happens

LESSON 6

The mobilisation of such diversity benefits from the inclusion of artists and designers, as well as meaningful citizen engagement processes, especially when it comes to developing and communicating visions for energy futures.

Collaborations with artists can bring a deeper understanding because they appeal better to people than our spreadsheets and tables

LESSON 7

  Don’t expect interdisciplinary science advice process to systematically emerge spontaneously. The demand side, policymakers, need to provide the incentives (via policy frameworks / funding) and invest into structures (e.g. knowledge brokerage units). 

LESSON 8

Again though, this is hard work on the demand side. Skills to process interdisciplinary advice are needed but also fundamental institutional change: Regulatory impact assessment and cost-benefit analysis are more compatible with some disciplines than others. What counts as evidence?

What we (social scientists) consider evidence does not neatly fit into an equation

LESSON 9

Epistemic diversity and integrated assessment should not only be available to central government ministries. The energy transition involves decentralised decisions by 1000s of actors: cities, energy using companies, grid owners, regulatory agencies, the financial sector, citizens, energy communities, and many others, all of which should have access to and provide input into the knowledge foundations of the energy transition.

We need this epistemic diversity and integrated perspective to go all the way down. Because if it does not go all the way down, then we miss key pieces of the puzzle and we lose public support for the transition

If you are interested in watching or listening to this session : 

More information