Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Global perspectives on scientists’ roles in legislative policymaking

  • Research Notes
  • Published:
Policy Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The question of how scientists should engage in policymaking has spurred both pragmatic and philosophical debates for decades. Scant empirical research addressing how experts perceive the different roles scientists might play complicates efforts to resolve the debate. Further, these literatures focus on Western developed nations, largely ignoring the efforts of governments worldwide to build science advisory capacity. In a survey of global legislative experts, we investigate their preferences and rationales for how scientists can be helpful to policy processes in legislatures, testing for effects of expertise and national development on role choice. The majority (79.2%) of respondents—science advice researchers, providers of scientific information to government, and users of scientific information within government—said that scientists should work closely with policymakers and others to integrate scientific results in policy decisions. The next most preferred role was that of reporting and interpreting results (53.0%). The primary reasons the respondents gave for scientists’ engagement were to improve decision-making (40.5%) and communication of science, whether through (two-way) dialogues (34.2%) or (one-way) explanations (18.4%). Few said that scientists should advocate for specific policies (18.6%). Respondents from developing nations were more accepting of ‘advocacy’ roles and less supportive of scientists that solely publish in academic journals than experts in developed countries. These experts’ preference for highly integrative work by scientists in policy suggests a global re-envisioning of the relationship between the science and policy communities even within highly political contexts. Institutional support from government and academia will be required to support these shifts.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Data and code availability

Data and code are available in the osf.io repository, https://osf.io/phj85/?view_only=0d3e7e4100914441aa03f9b5b8136ad4

References

  • AAAS. (2020). American Association for the Advancement of Science [home page]. https://www.aaas.org/

  • Akerlof, K., Tyler, C., Foxen, S. E., Heath, E., Gual Soler, M., Allegra, A., Cloyd, E. T., Hird, J. A., Nelson, S. M., Nguyen, C. T., Gonnella, C. J., Berigan, L. A., Abeledo, C. R., Al-Yakoub, T. A., Andoh, H. F., dos Santos Boeira, L., van Boheemen, P., Cairney, P., Cook-Deegan, R., Costigan, G., Dhimal, M., Di Marco, M. H., Dube, D., Egbetokun, A., El Kharraz, J., Galindo, L. E., Ferguson, M. W. J., Franco, J., Graves, Z., Hayter, E., Hernández-Mondragón, A. C., Hobbs, A. D., Holden, K. L., IJsselmuiden, C., Jegede, A. S., Krstic, S. B., Mbonyintwali, J.-M., Mengesha, S. D., Michalek, T., Nagano, H., Nentwich, M., Nouri, A., Ntale, P. D., Ogundele, O. M., Omenma, J. T., Pau, L.-F., Peha, J. M., Prescott, E. M., Ramos-Vielba, I., Roberts, R., Sandifer, P. A., Saner, M. A., Sanganyado, E., Sanni, M., Santillán, O., Stine, D. D., Straf, M. L., Tangney, P., Washbourne, C.-L., Winderickx, W., & Yarime, M. (2019). A collaboratively derived international research agenda on legislative science advice. Palgrave Communications, 5(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-019-0318-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Barkan, J. D. (2009). Legislative power in emerging African democracies. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bednarek, A. T., Wyborn, C., Cvitanovic, C., Meyer, R., Colvin, R. M., Addison, P. F. E., Close, S. L., Curran, K., Farooque, M., Goldman, E., Hart, D., Mannix, H., McGreavy, B., Parris, A., Posner, S., Robinson, C., Ryan, M., & Leith, P. (2018). Boundary spanning at the science–policy interface: The practitioners’ perspectives. Sustainability Science, 13(4), 1175–1183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-018-0550-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Biermann, F. (2002). Institutions for scientific advice: Global environmental assessments and their influence in developing countries. Global Governance: A Review of Multilateralism and International Organizations, 8(2), 195–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L. (2012). Measuring the societal impact of research. EMBO Reports, 13(8), 673–676. https://doi.org/10.1038/embor.2012.99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bornmann, L., & Mutz, R. (2015). Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 66(11), 2215–2222. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.23329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donner, S. D. (2014). Finding your place on the science – advocacy continuum: An editorial essay. Climatic Change, 124(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-014-1108-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, H. E. (2009). Science, policy, and the value-free ideal. University of Pittsburgh Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gibbons, M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P., & Trow, M. (1994). The new production of knowledge: The dynamics of science and research in contemporary societies. Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gieryn, T. (1999). Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grunwald, A. (2018). Technology assessment in practice and theory. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Guimarães, M. H., Pohl, C., Bina, O., & Varanda, M. (2019). Who is doing inter- and transdisciplinary research, and why? An empirical study of motivations, attitudes, skills, and behaviours. Futures, 112, 102441. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.futures.2019.102441

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D. (1993). The essential tension in science and democracy. Social Epistemology, 7(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/02691729308578676

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guston, D. H. (2001). Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An introduction. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 26(4), 399–408. https://doi.org/10.1177/016224390102600401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haas, P. M. (1992). Introduction: Epistemic communities and international policy coordination. International Organization, 46(1), 1–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hayes, A. F., & Krippendorff, K. (2007). Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures, 1, 77–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • INASP. (2016). Approaches to developing capacity for the use of evidence in policy making. INASP. https://www.inasp.info/sites/default/files/2018-04/VY%20impact%20report.pdf

  • Ingold, K., & Gschwend, M. (2014). Science in policy-making: Neutral experts or strategic policy-makers? West European Politics, 37(5), 993–1018. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2014.920983

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (1987). Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of Science, 17(2), 195–230.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2005). Designs on nature: Science and democracy in Europe and the United States. Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jasanoff, S. (2012). Science and public reason. Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jenkins-Smith, H. C., Nohrstedt, D., Weible, C. M., & Sabatier, P. A. (2014). The Advocacy Coalition Framework: Foundations, evolution, and ongoing research. In P. A. Sabatier & C. M. Weible (Eds.), Theories of the policy process (pp. 183–224). Avalon Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny, C., Washbourne, C.-L., Tyler, C., & Blackstock, J. J. (2017). Legislative science advice in Europe: The case for international comparative research. Palgrave Communications, 3.

  • Kotcher, J. E., Myers, T. A., Vraga, E. K., Stenhouse, N., & Maibach, E. W. (2017). Does engagement in advocacy hurt the credibility of scientists? Results from a randomized national survey experiment. Environmental Communication, 11(3), 415–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2016.1275736

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content Analysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology (2nd ed). Sage.

  • Lach, D., List, P., Steel, B., & Shindler, B. (2003). Advocacy and credibility of ecological scientists in resource decisionmaking: A regional study. BioScience, 53(2), 170–178. https://doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2003)053[0170:AACOES]2.0.CO;2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, K. N. (1994). Compass and gyroscope: Integrating science and politics for the environment. Island Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merton, R. K. (1973). The sociology of science: Theoretical and empirical investigations. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moore, G. E. (1965). Cramming more components onto integrated circuits. Electronics, 38(8), 114–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, M. G., & Peha, J. M. (Eds.). (2003). Science and technology advice for Congress. Resources for the Future.

  • Muhonen, R., Benneworth, P., & Olmos-Peñuela, J. (2020). From productive interactions to impact pathways: Understanding the key dimensions in developing SSH research societal impact. Research Evaluation, 29(1), 34–47. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvz003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, M. P., & Vucetich, J. A. (2009). On advocacy by environmental scientists: What, whether, why, and how. Conservation Biology, 23(5), 1090–1101. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01250.x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit, and authoritarian populism. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Pielke, R. A. (2007). The honest broker: Making sense of science in policy and politics. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Scientific integrity in federal agencies, U.S. House of Representatives, 116th U.S. Congress (2019) (testimony of Roger A. Pielke). https://science.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Pielke%20Testimony1.pdf

  • Rittel, H. W. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4(2), 155–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Runkle, D., & Frankel, M. S. (2012). Advocacy in science. Summary of a workshop convened by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Washington DC, October 17–18, 2011. American Association for the Advancement of Science. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/s3fs-public/reports/Advocacy_Workshop_Report_FINAL.pdf

  • Sanni, M., Oluwatope, O., Adeyeye, A., & Egbetokun, A. (2016). Evaluation of the quality of science, technology and innovation advice available to lawmakers in Nigeria. Palgrave Communications, 2, 16095. https://doi.org/10.1057/palcomms.2016.95

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santillán-García, A., Oliver, E., Grigorian Shamagian, L., Climent, A. M., & Melchor, L. (2020). #CienciaenelParlamento: La necesidad de una oficina parlamentaria de asesoramiento científico y tecnológico. Gaceta Sanitaria. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2019.08.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sarewitz, D. (2004). How science makes environmental controversies worse. Environmental Science & Policy, 7(5), 385–403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2004.06.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, F., Giger, M., Harari, N., Moser, S., Oberlack, C., Providoli, I., Schmid, L., Tribaldos, T., & Zimmermann, A. (2019). Transdisciplinary co-production of knowledge and sustainability transformations: Three generic mechanisms of impact generation. Environmental Science & Policy, 102, 26–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2019.08.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spruijt, P., Knol, A. B., Petersen, A. C., & Lebret, E. (2016). Differences in views of experts about their role in particulate matter policy advice: Empirical evidence from an international expert consultation. Environmental Science & Policy, 59, 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.02.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spruijt, P., Knol, A. B., Petersen, A. C., & Lebret, E. (2019). Expert views on their role as policy advisor: Pilot study for the cases of electromagnetic fields, particulate matter, and antimicrobial resistance. Risk Analysis, 39(5), 968–974. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spruijt, P., Knol, A. B., Torenvlied, R., & Lebret, E. (2013). Different roles and viewpoints of scientific experts in advising on environmental health risks. Risk Analysis, 33(10), 1844–1857. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.12020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spruijt, P., Knol, A. B., Vasileiadou, E., Devilee, J., Lebret, E., & Petersen, A. C. (2014). Roles of scientists as policy advisers on complex issues: A literature review. Environmental Science & Policy, 40, 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2014.03.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steel, B., Lach, D., List, P., & Shindler, B. (2001). The role of scientists in the natural resource and environmental policy process: A comparison of Canadian and American publics. Journal of Environmental Systems, 28(2), 133–155.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tyler, C. (2013). Scientific advice in Parliament. In R. Doubleday & J. Wilsdon (Eds.), Future directions for scientific advice in Whitehall. University of Cambridge’s Centre for Science and Policy; Science Policy Research Unit (SPRU) and ESRC STEPS Centre at the University of Sussex; Alliance for Useful Evidence; Institute for Government; Sciencewise-ERC.

  • United Nations Statistics Division. (2019). Methodology: Standard country or area codes for statistical use (M49). United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs. https://unstats.un.org/unsd/methodology/m49/

  • Zucman, G. (2019). Global wealth inequality. Annual Review of Economics, 11(1), 109–138. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-economics-080218-025852

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation under Grant No. 1842117.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

    K. L. Akerlof

  2. Department of Science and Technology Studies, University College London, London, UK

    Alessandro Allegra

  3. Department of Communication, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

    Selena Nelson

  4. Herndon, VA, USA

    Cameryn Gonnella

  5. Department of Science, Technology, Engineering and Public Policy, University College London, London, UK

    Carla Washbourne & Chris Tyler

Authors
  1. K. L. Akerlof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Alessandro Allegra
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Selena Nelson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Cameryn Gonnella
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Carla Washbourne
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Chris Tyler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to K. L. Akerlof.

Ethics declarations

Conflicts of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 30 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Akerlof, K.L., Allegra, A., Nelson, S. et al. Global perspectives on scientists’ roles in legislative policymaking. Policy Sci 55, 351–367 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09457-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-022-09457-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation