Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the blog articles belong solely to the 
author of the content, and do not necessarily reflect the European Commission's 
perspectives on the issue.

Science does not always clearly tell what to do. There can be scientific backup for conflicting policies. This poses a challenge if the aim of a K4P organization is to give actionable policy recommendations. It can lead to internal discussions. For instance: establishing a climate neutral society requires a government that steers by setting conditions to a market (like a European Emissions Trading System), or a government that steers with a vision on closing some industries and fostering others.

Our reflex is to make such a discussion into a scientific debate: who has the better evidence and/or argument? But as the example shows, these discussions are also about values, or even politics, in science. That is why in my organization we are working on breaking down the ‘jump’ from science to policy advise into explicit steps in a method, including explicit discussions on the normative steps involved. At the EIPM Community of Practice meeting in October 2025, we discussed this topic at a conversation table. This conversation table was aimed at a first exploration of this complex topic with fellow practitioners, to see whether there are good practices and what we could learn from each other. 

The questions we discussed:

• Do you have an example in your organization of conflicting policy recommendations that are both supported by evidence?
• How was this conflict resolved?
• If you have no examples, are conflicting recommendations avoided earlier on in the process, in the selection and exclusion of (types of) knowledge? Or..?
• Are these choices dealt with in a transparent process or more of a black box in your organization?

Some examples mentioned at the table:

• Lockdowns: epidemiological versus for instance psychological or sociological evidence;
• Conflicting studies referred to by different politicians regarding a big road construction project;
• Two authoritative boards presented conflicting conclusions regarding pesticides.

The main insights from two discussion rounds that show diverse perspectives:

• Usually such conflicts are resolved in a black box, which can be dangerous.
• Within evidence there can be value assumptions, for instance in the concept of what a risk assessment entails.
• If evidence is not value-laden, it is also not relevant for politics and policy because it would not provide direction. We should give options.
• Politicians should make the decision and be presented with several (conflicting) evidence and policy options, but civil servants often make that call.
• Presenting conflicting evidence to policy makers or politicians does not mean it is a neutral presentation: the authority of forms of evidence/scientific fields can be different, as well as the authority of the presenter (e.g. a younger woman with a feminist approach vs. an older man with ‘mainstream’ demographic approach, or an ecologist vs. an economist).
• Sometimes a section with limitations and warnings is added to policy advise to account for conflicting evidence. This was not preceded by a transparent discussion on which evidence should or should not be sidelined.
• … and that there was a lot more to think and say about this topic.

Next steps:

• Reach out to me if you are interested in following up on this topic. Share any ideas, practices, inspiration you have.
• In Spring 2026, I will follow up on this session with those interested and present the method we are piloting at my organization. The CoP will be looped in.