The development of the Paris Agreement's target of limiting global warming to 1.5°C shows both the opportunities and risks of co-production of knowledge in societal issues.

– We often think that this target came from science, but it was actually adopted in 2015 by decision-makers in Paris. They then asked the research community for evidence of the target, and the research community responded that it didn't exist," said Jessica Jewell, Associate professor of Physical Resource Theory at Chalmers University of Technology, at the conference Open Science - From Policy to Practice.

Thanks to generous funding and political support for more scientific knowledge, much research could be conducted, which is partly a success story of policy relevant and useful science. But it also illustrates the risk of research being influenced by policy issues.

– Scientists already suspected that scenarios for a two degree target were unrealistic, and yet, tons of new knowledge came out about the 1.5 degree target, she said.

In contrast, the "throw it over the fence" model was presented, where science is excellent and independent but instead risks avoiding the societal issue and becoming irrelevant. When the same scientists were asked to answer whether it is possible to achieve the target, the response was "limiting warming to 1.5°C is possible within the laws of chemistry and physics", which was difficult for politicians to translate into a societal context.

According to Jessica Jewell, when aiming to combine research and policy, we need to be reminded that the term 'feasible' means different things to researchers than to politicians.

– Something that is feasible for a politician is something that society can actually do, while something that is feasible for the researcher is something that solves their mathematical models," she said.

Jessica Jewell, Chalmers University of Technology. Photo: Lena Söderström/Vetenskap och Allmänhet

Knowledge brokers assist

Knowledge about several critical societal challenges is high and scientists often want to reach relevant audiences, but time and resources to do so are often limited. They also lack channels and knowledge of which target groups they need to reach in order to engage in policy processes, and how to do this.

– This is where we come in, says Ellen Bruno, Policy Analyst at Stockholm University Baltic Sea Centre.

– We engage in a policy process when there is scientific knowledge needed to move it in the right direction. Or if we have important scientific knowledge that should lead to a political process or decision, she says.

From her role as a knowledge broker or policy analyst at a research center, she presented a model where researchers, communicators and policy analysts work closely together to effectively reach the right target group at the right time. The researcher decides what message to communicate, while the colleagues focus on target groups and format. The initiative is unique, and has proven successful in reaching decision-makers and environmental management officials to a greater extent than previously.

– We see that knowledge brokering is a good way to work. Somebody working as policy analyst, should have a good knowledge of the scientific area they work in and they have a really good knowledge of how policy processes move, ideally both nationally, in the European Union, and globally.

By a similar model at the EU level, the European Commission Joint Research Centre (JRC) has 2000 researchers who provide scientific input for decisions and research programmes that affect the everyday lives of EU citizens. Their studies show that the public want more scientists engaging with policy issues and that decisions-making is based on evidence.

– It enriches the debate, and actually makes public debates more interesting and complete, if we don't just scratch the surface but talk about really good scientific evidence, said Julian Keimer, Policy Analyst at JRC.

So if both academia and citizens want to see more research linked to important societal issues, why is it difficult to achieve?

Requires long-term approach

One explanation is that the political and academic systems have distinct characteristics that clearly differs, which in many cases impedes effective cooperation. Mikael Karlsson, Associate professor in Environmental Science and Climate Leadership at Uppsala University, exemplified the baseline - science describes the world and deals with facts, while politics, which governs the world, is based on norms.

– Science is indispensable in the modern world. Agriculture, medicine, technology, communication and transport depend on scientific findings. At the same time, politics is indispensable if you want to act on what science says, he explained.

Time is another factor. Research requires time, patience and reassessment, while politicians and civil servants work under stressful conditions with defined mandates and tasks that are influenced by public opinion. There are good examples where broad parliamentary groupings have worked closely on a long-term with researchers and achieved results, including the development of Sweden's climate policy framework.

– This led to the most ambitious climate policy framework in the world, said Mikael Karlsson.

Panel discussion with moderator Gun Rudquist (from the left), Stockholm University Baltic Sea Centre, Amanda Wood, Stockholm Resilience Centre, Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström, the Swedish Parliament and Anders Grönwall, independent debater. Photo: Lisa Bergqvist.

Building up structures for long-term scientific advice, for example through so-called boundary organizations or research councils, can increase the scientific quality of decision-making and the trust between politicians, researchers and society.

Yet, a prerequisite for individual scientists to be able to engage in continuous policy work is that it is also rewarded. There is a clear lack of incentives within the academic system. Amanda Wood, researcher at the Stockholm Resilience Centre, emphasised that policy collaboration is a specific research role, not just an extra outreach task.

– The academic system mainly rewards what and where you have published your results and how many classroom hours and students you have taught, she explained.

– We need a new set of criteria that can match the responsibilities of this new research role, Amanda Wood stated.

On a final note during the discussions on how to increase the dialogue in the science-policy-interface, Jessica Jewell gave the audience a reminder - that science cannot be held responsible for democratic decisions. It is important to distinguish the roles in a collaboration. Politicians must be prepared for the fact that scientific advice is sometimes uncomfortable, and take responsibility for being the ones that decide how to proceed.

– There will always be winners and losers in, for example, different environmental scenarios, but it is not the role of scientists to make the decisions. They can inform the process and elucidate trade-offs. But they cannot make the decisions, said Jessica Jewell.
 

Text: Isabell Stenson

Watch the session: