More than 200 participants in person and 248 online, including from 18 European Union member states, gathered in Brussels for the closing conference of the Technical Support Instrument (TSI) project, “Building Capacity for Evidence-Informed Policymaking in Governance and Public Administration.” This multi-year project, funded by SG Reform and implemented by the Joint Research Centre of the European Commission and OECD, sought to strengthen Evidence-Informed Policymaking (EIPM) in seven member states (Greece, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Netherlands). The conference provided an opportunity to discuss how to build capacity for EIPM in governance and public administration, reflect on EIPM's political and practical aspects, discuss future agendas, and increase awareness and a shared understanding of EIPM's importance.  

Science, trust, and democratic values 

The day opened with Bernard Magenhann, Director General of the Joint Research Centre (JRC) who outlined the project’s contribution to institutionalize science-policy relationships, reinforcing trust. He also emphasized the importance of EIPM to impactful policy design. Loes Mulder, Secretary General of the Ministry of Education and Research of the Netherlands, warned against political and ideological pressures on science and highlighted the need for collaborative long-term agendas between ministries and scientific institutions. She also called for long-term, inclusive strategies that engage underrepresented voices and safeguard democratic values. 

Practical impact of EIPM and strategies to coordinate its ecosystem 

The morning’s first discussion panel focused on EIPM as a basis for sound policymaking. Speakers highlighted the need for strong analytical capacities, interdepartmental cooperation, and public engagement to drive policy decisions informed by evidence. Andrzej Szeptycki (Ministry for Science and Higher Education, Poland) stressed the dual importance of informing public decisions and combating disinformation, underscoring the need for trust between institutions and society. Laimonas Rudys (Chancellor of the Government of Lithuania) emphasized EIPM as a guiding principle for national governance, advocating for political leadership and enhanced cooperation to foster an EIPM culture. Judit Rózsa (DG REFORM) stressed the EU's leadership in EIPM and the necessity for politicians to use evidence to build public trust and enhance institutional resilience. Janos Bertok (OECD) identified evidence as a stabilizing factor that enhances trust in public institutions and suggested leveraging AI tools to facilitate further advancements in EIPM across member states.  

The next panel was moderated by Jolita Butkeviciene (JRC’s Innovation in Science and Policymaking Section) and discussed the challenges of EIPM implementation. Panelists highlighted that EIPM’s impact relies on fostering trust, interdisciplinary collaboration, and adapting policymaking processes to enhance the consideration of scientific insights. Karel Blaha (Advisor to the Government of the Czech Republic), drawing from lessons learned in creating a government analytical unit in the Czech Republic, emphasized the importance of institutionalizing EIPM and fostering transdisciplinary collaboration to refine decision-making. Loes Mulder highlighted the necessity of integrating science at the start of the policy process and involving citizens early on, as demonstrated by interventions in educational policy during COVID-19. Josep Lobera Serrano (National Office for Science Advice, Prime Minister Office, Spain) discussed the recent integration of science advisors into ministries in Spain, and the relevance of trust in adapting public administrations to EIPM.  

The last plenary discussion focused on coordinating EIPM ecosystems, moderated by Agnieszka Gadzina-Kołodziejska (JRC), shared insights on strategies and incentives to improve EIPM drawn from the TSI project. Roman Matoušek (Adviser to the Minister of Regional Development of the Czech Republic) emphasized the need to maintain momentum and avoid bureaucratic pitfalls. Agnė Vilkončiūt (Lithuania’s Strategic Analysis Centre, STRATA) highlighted the need to address fragmentation within the Lithuania ecosystem to achieve greater effectiveness, discussed the importance of collaborative leadership. Marc Vanholsbeek (BELSPO, Belgium) addressed the challenges of data accessibility and the importance of the relationships between people and evidence. Katrin Kiisler (R&D Policy Department, Ministry of Education and Research, Estonia) noted the difficulty of systemic change and the role of science advisers in coordination. Lorenzo Melchor Fernand (Office for National Advise, ONAC, Prime Minister’s Office, Spain), outlined Spain’s future coordination strategies, including establishing interministerial working groups and securing political support. Nana Filosidou (General Secretariat of Coordination, Greece) focused on bridging the gap between policymakers and the science community. Finally, Edvards Francis Kuks (Ministry for Human Capital, Research and Innovation, Latvia) stressed the need to address challenges of informal networks and inter-ministry competition. 

Member state experience-sharing through short interviews 

Short interviews with representatives from the seven member states of the TSI project were facilitated by Athina Manta (SG REFORM) and Alexandra Olajos-Szabo (JRC). The Czech Republic representative noted that the project helped identify areas to be improved. The Netherlands highlighted the demanding nature of creating an EIPM culture, which requires patience, and emphasized the importance of focusing on improving the EIPM ecosystem. Lithuania's representative underscored the project's role in convening and establishing a network of different EIPM actors, highlighting the relevance of individual contributions (“champions”). Estonia mentioned how their science adviser network, with one adviser in each ministry, greatly facilitates coordination and interministerial contact for the benefit of EIPM. Greece underlined the project’s role in intensifying progress in the use of data in the Greek’s public administration. 

Thinking out loud about the future 

Four parallel sessions addressed key challenges and emerging topics on EIPM, launching ideas for a follow-up project. 

During the panel discussion on how to assess the impact of EIPM, moderated by Stephane Jacobzone (OECD), experts shared insights on the value, advantages, challenges, and political implications of EIPM. Kristian Krieger (European Research Executive Agency) highlighted the intangible nature of EIPM's impact and the difficulty in tracking its effectiveness, suggesting a focus on institutional capacity. Valerie Pattyn (Leiden University) emphasized the complexity of determining causal aspects and the importance of context, institutional traditions, and the role of key actors in evaluations. Margareta Theelen (JRC) discussed the JRC's approach to assessing performance through policy relevance, bibliometric analysis, and case studies, stressing early involvement and cross-disciplinary connections as crucial elements. Trudy Duffy (Department of Further and Higher Education, Research, Innovation and Science, Ireland) pointed out the varying ways of working across sectors and the challenges posed by different counterfactuals in policy evaluation.  

The discussion on how to professionalize knowledge brokering was moderated by Anne-Greet Keizer of the JRC. Gintaras Valinčiu (Research Council of Lithuania), Külliki Tafel-Viia (Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications, Estonia), Patrick Flammarion (INRAe, France), and Ana Elorza Moreno (Oficina C, Spain) agreed on the need to transition from relying on individual science advisors to forming interdisciplinary teams. Panelists stressed the importance of transparency regarding knowledge brokers affiliations, collaborations, and funding, and highlighted the necessity of informing policy makers about both consensus, dissent, and knowledge gaps. They also underscored the critical role of knowledge brokers’ interpersonal skills in being effective change agents.  The panelists acknowledged that EIPM knowledge brokering must navigate the space between three key factors—science, policy, and society—serving as the intermediary between all three. 

The panel on the role of EIPM to enhance trust in public institutions was moderated by David Mair (JRC). Johannes Starkbaum (Institute for Advanced Studies, Austria) highlighted the necessity of early public engagement in policymaking. Marianna Prats (OECD) highlighted the role of science in building trust, citing OECD’s 2022 Trust Survey for Portugal, and noted the role of citizen participation in developing trust in government as illustrated by the Trust Survey results from Australia, concluding that building trust requires quality evidence, transparent communication, and inclusive citizen participation. Frans Brom (Scientific Council for Government Policy, WRR, the Netherlands), added that trust involves acknowledging risks and vulnerabilities, and accepting that societal pluralism entails disagreements which evidence cannot resolve.  

Elias Kock (JRC) moderated a session on the role of AI in EIPM which discussed practical cases of how AI could help support policymaking through quicker and improved evidence synthesis, as well as, for example, through simulations of policy impact using “artificial citizens”. Julien Gosse (JRC), Kristel Kriisa (AI Adviser, Government Office, Estonia), Aymeric Floyrac (Data Science, General Inspectorate of Finance, France), and George Tsomidis (MEKY, Greece) agreed AI used thoughtfully and responsibly may significantly contribute to EIPM, but that requires investment in a structured approach, allowing experimenting with AI tools in policymaking, building technical AI capacities and infrastructure. 

The way forward 

The conference concluded with reflections from Kjartan Bjornsson (SG REFORM), David Mair, and Stéphane Jacobzone. Speakers acknowledged the progress made in EIPM but cautioned that the EIPM community will not self-organize, requiring continued support, coordination, and investment to sustain the momentum built by the TSI project. Speakers emphasized that EIPM is a continuing journey that requires institutional commitment, cultural change, and cross-sector collaboration. 

Read the reflection paper on the project's lessons learnt