Dialogue on science and science policy for the SDGs in the Pacific SIDS Sir Peter Gluckman ONZ FRS Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister of New Zealand Chair, International Network of Government Science Advice Apia 28-30 March 2017
The challenges and opportunities of the SDGs and the role of science In addressing the SDGs/2030 Agenda, the role of global, regional and domestic policy making will be critical Essentially all the SDGs require an evidence-informed approach to policy making at each of these levels But what is the relationship between science and policy at both the global and national levels Effective global action requires effective domestic science advisory mechanisms and a much more overt effort to link these to the international system
Science and the SDGs
The science of primary relevance to the SDGs:» Better application of existing technologies and knowledge» Development of new impactful knowledge» Development of disruptive new technologies» Integration of disciplines especially across social-natural science boundary» The science to be done includes much mission led science/development» Technologies must be developed and applied with appropriate recognition of domestic social consensus (acknowldging cultural and national diversity of worldviews; global consensus will be much more complex)» The growing challenge of social license
The science of primary relevance to the SDGs:» Particularly In LMICs» Engagement of local scientists,» Incorporation of local knowledge» The building of science capital» It must build local capacity and this will require development of local institutional capacities (universities, academies, funding systems)» It will require ongoing development of the science - society - policy nexus» But in the SIDS» The challenges are equally great» The capability and capacity issues are very distinct» Regional approaches become even more important
The funding of science» The continued general deficiency of transnational strategic and targeted R&D funding systems» The issue of jurisdictional based funding» The biases of foundation/donor funding» The need for new models» eg - the global research alliance on agricultural greenhouse gases (GRA)» www.globalresearchalliance.org» The need for greater co-production and co-design approaches» Current international discussions on science systems are not inclusive» Confused, overlapping, and competing international science, science policy and science system organisational arrangements» These structural issues merit more systematic discussion
Science advice, evidence-based policy making and the SDGs
» Governments are more likely to make better decisions when they use well-developed evidence wisely» The nexus between science (natural, and social), society and policy is complex at a national level even in developed countries» There are a further set of challenges when considering science and its interaction with policy through an international lens
The science policy nexus» Virtually every challenge a government faces has a scientific dimension» But science alone does not make policy; many values and political considerations» Is robust science available, will it be used, misused, manipulated or ignored? The challenge of populist politics and media The vilification of elites and experts But science and scientists also have played a role in creating the problem Sir Peter Gluckman March 2017
Science advisory ecosystems» This requires the development of a science advisory ecosystem» This must include both the social and natural sciences in a fully integrated way Science Policy» 10 member group of TFM 2016 highlighted the essential need for effective national science systems and science advisory mechanisms Society
Science and policy making Science and policy making are very distinct cultures The nature of the interaction is influenced by context, culture and history and by the relationship between science and society There is increasing recognition of the importance of boundary roles and structures to link these cultures The nature of boundary entities is variable and evolving: there will not be a one-size-fits-all model Science Society The boundary function Policy
The evolving science policy nexus The nature of science is changing The relationship between science and society is changing The nature of policy making is evolving The relationship between society and the policy elite is changing Evidence informed policy making sits at the nexus of science, policy and society It is evolving into a distinct set of skills that need to be developed
Science in the 21st century Increasingly science is embedded within society rather than standing apart from it It is now a tool of national and international development and is placed in a more utilitarian framing by Governments The need for science in the policy process is increasingly understood The explosion of knowledge and the pace of innovation is both an opportunity and a challenge for society and governments The issues of social license for science and technology are growing And the nature of science itself has changed and is changing
Changing nature of science From linear to non-linear Accepting complexity From reductionist to systems based From certainty to probabilistic The boundary between social and natural sciences is starting to fall From normal to post-normal The science is complex Facts uncertain There is much which is unknown Acknowledgement of indigenous and local knowledge Stakes are high Decision making is urgent There is a high values component and values are in dispute Growing understanding of the importance of co-production and co-design
Policy making is messy! POLICY!!!! Legislators Political decisions Private sector Public opinion Policy analysts Lobbyists Policy is rarely determined by evidence but policy can be and should be informed by eviden
What is evidence? Politicians and policy makers have many sources of evidence Tradition Prior belief Anecdote and observation Modern science Scientific processes aim to obtain relatively objective understandings of the natural and built world. Science is defined by its processes which are designed to reduce bias and enhance objectivity. But important value judgments lie within science especially over what question and how to study it. But the most important in the context of policy is the sufficiency and quality of evidence. Sir Peter Gluckman March 2017
Scientists and policy making Scientists are Very good at problem definition Less so at finding workable, scalable and meaningful solutions They often approach the policy maker with considerable hubris. They often fail to consider the multiple domains that go into policy formation and demonstrate hubris But they have a critical role in the policy process through the science advisory ecosystem Sir Peter Gluckman March 2017
Policy makers and scientists» Can have hubris; not recognize the need for expert interpretation (information needs interpretation)» Most relevant science is incomplete and much is ambiguous» Policy makers cannot be expected to be scientific referees» The need for translation and brokerage» Policy makers see evidence is one of a number of inputs» In what sense is science privileged and how is that privilege maintained?» The role of the broker. Sir Peter Gluckman March 2017
Domestic science advice requires an ecosystem The brokerage function Scientists Research and a research system Science capital Governance institutions that seek evidentiary input Science Policy Society Brokerage structure
Developing science capital New models of STEAM education Participatory/citizen science Engagement between modern science and ILK Co-design, co-production The value of science-policy fora Science Society Policy
Developing science capital New models of STEAM education Participatory/citizen science Engagement between modern science and ILK Co-design, co-production The value of science-policy fora Science Society Policy Get beyond the deficit model Best defence against postexpert, post-truth, post-trust
Different roles in a science advisory ecosystem Knowledge generators Individual academics +++ ++ Academic societies/professional bodies + Government employed practicing scientists +++ + Knowledge synthesizers Scientist within regulatory agency + +++ ++ National academies +++ + Government advisory boards/science councils ++ + Science advisors + +++ Knowledge brokers Sir Peter Gluckman March 2017
Different roles in a science advisory ecosystem Knowledge generators Individual academics +++ ++ Academic societies/professional bodies + Government employed practicing scientists +++ + Knowledge synthesizers Scientist within regulatory agency + +++ ++ National academies +++ + What needs to be national, what could be regional? Government advisory boards/science councils ++ + Science advisors + +++ Knowledge brokers Sir Peter Gluckman March 2017
The nature of advice Policy for science Evidence for policy: options (strategic) Evidence for policy: Implementation (operational and tactical) Evidence for policy: Evaluation (strategic & tactical) Horizon scanning Crises Individual academics + ± ± ± ± Academic societies/profess l bodies +++ + + ± ± Gov t employed scientists + ++ + + + Scientists within regulatory agencies + ++ ++ National academies +++ + + Gov t advisory bds/science councils ++ + + + Science advisors + ++++ ++ ++ ++ +++ Sir Peter Gluckman March 2017
Five overlapping dimensions of science advice From technical advice to regulatory advice to policy advice Time scales from immediate (crisis) to deliberative to foresighting Informal/formal Internal to the policy system (eg science advisors) to external to the policy system (most academies) From local to national to international
Further challenges are created by.. State of national development Governance National institutions National science capacities Context, culture, constitution Nature of public and policy discourse Attitude to experts
Principles and guidelines for science advising Trust Avoidance of hubris Distinguish science for policy from policy for science Understand science informs and does not make policy Protect the privilege of science Recognize the limits of science Brokerage not advocacy What is known, what is the expert consensus What is not known and other caveats The inferential gap, risk management How it relates to other considerations, alertness to social implications Options and tradeoffs INGSA is developing a set of guidelines for reporting to WSF 2017
From national to international The SDGs will require a more evidence informed approach to policy making Because most international decision making is made not by agencies but by member states, in general effective international science advice cannot operate without well developed domestic science advisory systems These can promote enlightened self interest by nation states. These must be well connected to diplomatic and related systems These can be supported by transnational mechanisms Agency advisory boards Better a priori liaison between advisory systems Scientific input into diplomatic mechanisms Internationally linked national science advisory networks can assist - INGSA
Inputs to global science advice NGOs Foundations Academies ICSU Advisory groups to UN agencies etc (focused on international interest) National input often diplomatic (focused on national interest) Agency policy development, Strategy development Needs an effective domestic scientific advisory system Implementati on plan Global agreement National input often diplomatic (focused on national interest and domestic policy) There is little or no effective connectivity between domestic and global advisory systems at the key intersections: global action is not possible without effective domestic advisory systems Agency and domestic actions
INGSA INGSA founded in 2014 under the aegis of ICSU Memorandum of understanding with UNESCO Concerned with all dimensions of science advice Networking Research Forum, resources, networking Capacity building workshops Thematic workshops (eg foreign ministries, environment) Partnerships (eg with JRC) Principles of science advice (WSF 2017) Membership is free: academics, practitioners, policy makers (>1000 members, 75 countries) African chapter, Latin American and Asian chapters under development, foreign ministry chapter under development www.ingsa.org Sir Peter Gluckman March 2017