Advising governments about science is essential but difficult. So train people to do it

Earlier this year, Nature asked science-policy specialists which country is particularly good at ensuring science is factored into government decisions. The question mystified many respondents. “Not aware of any,” wrote one. “None have enviable systems,” wrote another. “Very hard to say,” said a third.
Science could solve some of the world’s biggest problems. Why aren’t governments using it?
That sums up the poor opinion that many have of science advice to governments. Nature’s survey was sent to several thousand people worldwide, most of whom are affiliated to the International Network of Government Science Advice (INGSA), a global association of researchers and policymakers, based in Auckland, New Zealand. Some 80% of the nearly 400 respondents rated their country’s science-advice system as being patchy, poor or very poor. Blame lay on both sides: 77% said that policymakers and politicians ignore and undervalue science advice, and 73% said that researchers fail to understand policy.
That dismal verdict is worrying. It has been nearly five years since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, during which many scientists had difficulty giving governments advice and politicians struggled to implement it. And yet, it seems that only a few countries have stopped to make repairs. Governments today are wrestling with climate change, infectious diseases, artificial intelligence and wars. To address these issues effectively, they need knowledge from research. More than 70% of survey respondents said that misinformation and disinformation obscure science advice.
Having political leaders who are receptive to science is one essential ingredient for effective science advice. Another is having people who can deliver it well. It is a misconception to think that someone successful in research will also succeed in politics and policymaking, in which events move faster than in academia and the style of delivery is as important as what is said. Improving global science advice — and therefore improving the world — needs people with better training and skills for the job.
Why we need a body to oversee how science is used by governments
That brilliant scientists often prove ineffectual in government has been clear since at least the mid-1960s, when the first cross-government chief scientific adviser was appointed in the United Kingdom. “Having gained access to the corridors of power, scientists could not find their way to the men’s room,” wrote science journalist Peter Ritchie Calder, in his 1975 memoir Scientists in the British Government. Politicians weren’t much better, he added: they were “deferential, even gullible, but, by and large, they did not know the right questions to ask”.
A lot has changed in the intervening years. Today, many countries have well-established formal systems in which governments call on chief science advisers, national academies and committees of scientists to inform policy with evidence from research. Beyond this, research shapes policy in a spectrum of ways, from think-tank reports to scientist–politician meet-and-greets.
Aside from an understanding of science, a core attribute for science advisers is a good grasp of: how governments and their departments work; the goals and deadlines of policymakers; and how evidence can be appropriately added to the mix. That experience can be gained, for example, through fellowships or internships in government agencies. In the United States, the American Association for the Advancement of Science runs one well-known fellowship in Washington DC. There are many more.
Another requirement is a repertoire of people skills: the ability to communicate complex ideas in succinct, everyday language; the capacity to build trusting relationships, so that politicians have faith in the information they receive and that their confidences will not be breached; being able to respectfully understand others’ views and priorities, however different. “Only in this way can you hope to convey the evidence to them in a way that helps them understand and appreciate it,” says Mark Ferguson, who was Ireland’s chief science adviser between 2012 and 2022.
Training scientists in policy is one approach. Also important is to nurture an emerging group known as knowledge brokers — people specialized in incorporating research evidence into the machinery of government.
AI tools as science policy advisers? The potential and the pitfalls
A growing number of institutions worldwide offer training to both scientists and knowledge brokers. One is the International Institute for Science Diplomacy and Sustainability in Kuala Lumpur, which was founded last year by Zakri Abdul Hamid, a former science adviser to Malaysia’s prime minister. The institute trains people to bridge science and international diplomacy, preparing them for United Nations climate meetings, for instance.
INGSA offers training too, but wants to do more, says Rémi Quirion, chief scientist of Québec, Canada, and INGSA’s president. Research funders and employers need to incentivize researchers to do science-advice training and work. Some 60% of survey respondents said that funders’ failure to do so was an impediment to science advice.
These efforts need to be informed by evidence. A study in 2022 identified more than 1,900 initiatives worldwide aimed at promoting greater engagement between policymakers and researchers, from the collaborative production of policy briefs to networking events (K. Oliver et al. Evid. Policy 18, 691—713; 2022). Only 6% had been evaluated to assess how well they worked.
Today’s challenges are galvanizing interest in science policy among young people who see it as a more direct way to have an impact than pure research. That’s good news. It is easy for researchers to gripe that politicians don’t understand science. A better response is to learn about politics and policy, and to get involved.