A recent editorial in Nature endorses an expert report on science diplomacy prepared for the European Commission that recommends that “science move closer to the centre of EU policymaking”. The expert report goes on to argue that scientists must “become more visible and be at the core rather than at the fringe” of policy making. The editorial uses this to argue that “researchers need to be in the room when big decisions are being made” while insisting that “researchers must be able to operate without direct interference”. While this vision is perhaps compelling at first glance, some critically important questions are left unanswered.
First, if researchers are ‘in the room’ is it to ensure that decision makers are fully aware of the trade-offs or is it because they are now science-driven decision makers? The latter appears to assume that there is consensus on ‘what the science says’ and that the advice of scientists is, well, ‘scientific’ and value free. While many in STEM disciplines believe this to be true there is a considerable body of research that suggests otherwise.
Second, the closer scientists are to decision makers, or become decision makers themselves, the greater the challenge of retaining their independence. How scientific research is integrated into policy making is more complicated than giving scientists ‘a seat at the table’. In most liberal democracies there is agreement that governments should not directly interfere in the conduct of scientific research. Among other things this ensures the possibility of independent, science-driven evaluation and criticism of government policy decisions. However the moment that scientists become close advisors to governments, to be effective they must reconcile what the available scientific evidence suggests with what is feasible given a host of economic, social, and yes, political constraints.
More importantly, if the COVID-19 pandemic taught us anything it is that giving scientific experts decision making authority (or being seen to do so) raises enormous issues of democratic accountability. The wave of populism that drives contemporary politics is driven, rightly or wrongly, by a longstanding concern about the role of unaccountable technocratic elites that grew exponentially during the pandemic. While it is desirable to ensure that scientific experts are ‘at the centre of policymaking’ it is imperative that we are clear about what this means, who has the authority to make decisions, and pay attention to the implications of different designs of the science-policy interface. The good news is that there is a large body of research available on how do do just that.
