Hearing our policymakers’ expectations (HOPE)
Published on April 21st, 2022
Trained as a scientist, Kerri-Ann Jones transitioned into policy and has served in numerous roles. She has served as the Vice President, Research and Science, at the Pew Charitable Trusts. She previously served as Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs at the U.S. Department of State and in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, as Associate Director for National Security and International Affairs. She has also worked for the National Science Foundation
As a policy maker, what essential scientific knowledge do you need to be better prepared for future emergencies?
There are several aspects of the communication process that could help scientists convey essential knowledge in ways that would help policy makers prepare for the future. First, it is necessary for scientists to be aware that there are many players at the policy table, many of whom have strong voices and opinions and who feel their interests are as important as the science. Scientists need to go to the policy table with a realistic appraisal of the landscape, realizing that science is not automatically going to win the day; it is one of many voices and always will be.
Second, scientists should be aware that a policy maker receives science input from multiple sources. Understanding the science advisory matrix that the policy maker sits in is critical. For instance, at the State Department, there are many scientists on staff, but advice can also be obtained from other technical agencies, including the FDA, NIH, and NSF. It is becoming more common for policy makers to be surrounded by science advisors, so scientists should understand the amount of science information policy makers are faced with and how they fit in.
Third, we have the critical issue of certainty and uncertainty. Policy making is undeniably a political process and political processes seek answers that are very specific and can be stated succinctly with certainty. Making a statement with great certainty in science requires a significant body of evidence. Clear k discussions between policy makers and scientists about what constitutes certainty are always needed.
What is the optimal way to present data and scientific information to policy makers, to maximize their resulting scientific knowledge?
Scientific information should reach policy makers in a steady flow, not subject to an on/off switch based on whether there is a crisis. A steady flow of information helps to ensure that science has a real presence in the policy process, day in and day out. However, the optimal way to present this knowledge is situation and personality specific. If a scientist has an opportunity to brief a policy maker, the scientist should understand that policy maker’s way of best taking in information. For example, some policy makers prefer reading data and technical information, others prefer more abstracted or visual presentations. Sometimes it is necessary to interact with the policy makers for some time and asking what works best for them.
How Frontiers’ platforms might be structured to ensure that policy makers can quickly find the information they need.
Ease of access, for a policy maker, is determined by the way topics are collected or curated. Most policy makers would not search for information by discipline, for example, but instead by the policy topic. Moreover, information must be presented in a way that is immediately relevant to the way policy makers and the public see issues. To appeal to the needs of the policy maker, abstracts and executive summaries would not describe the science in terms of relevance to the ongoing field, but in terms of relevance to the social context. Making the social context of the science immediately relevant is vital because staff members, who are the gateway to policy makers, are overwhelmed with information.
If you could increase your science and technology budget, what information would you need to make that marginal investment?
Wagner asked how science budgets are created in light of the underlying question of whether to become more scientifically interdependent with other nations or whether to maintain greater sovereignty in an attempt to stay ahead. We are already interdependent. We live in the time of a global science and technology enterprise, in which there will always be a balancing act between cooperation and competition. Every country wants to do well and stimulate its economy, but countries cannot do that alone. International challenges like the Covid-19 pandemic, climate change, and mercury pollution are not the issues of individual nations.
On a related note, Wagner asked about practicing reciprocity and openness, which are key principles of science and of Frontiers, when working with players who have seemingly different values, such as China. In each bilateral relationship, there is the same balance of cooperation and competition that was just mentioned. Such relationships are matters of diplomacy – they need continual work, including an explanation of what openness means from a scientific perspective. Openness is a key value of science, shared almost universally, which is why science is an excellent tool for building international relationships.
Additional thoughts
Science and policy making are both very dynamic, so the two must constantly be in communication, which the HOPE project is working to promote. Further, the world of scientific advice has gotten much bigger, broader, and more complicated. Helping policy makers navigate this increasing complexity is important, and being an objective tool in that process is very valuable. To the extent possible, any publication or collection of publications should try to maintain their objectivity and serve as a credible and dependent resource, because those are the things that make a difference.
