House of Commons - Science and Technology

Select Committee on Science and Technology Written Evidence

APPENDIX 4

Memorandum from the Environment Research Funders' Forum

INTRODUCTION

1. This submission is made on behalf of the Environment Research Funders' Forum as a general input to the Select Committee's Inquiry, rather than in relation to the initial case studies to be addressed. We suggest that a case study on environmental policy making might usefully be considered at a later stage of the Inquiry.

2. The Environment Research Funders' Forum (ERFF) brings together the UK's major public sector sponsors of environmental science (Research Councils, Government Departments and their Agencies) to co-ordinate research funding and to address issues of common interest (please see the web-page www.erff.org.uk for further details). A list of members of the Forum is given at Annex 1.

3. The better use of science in environmental policy-making and regulation has been identified as an important area of shared interest. Consequently, ERFF has taken an initiative to identify the key issues that need to be addressed to improve the use of science and to take steps to tackle identified priorities.

THE ERFF REVIEW

4. An initial "baseline review" was carried out to take stock of the use of science in environmental policy-making and regulation in the UK. Interviews were conducted with some 70 people working at the science-policy interface in 35 organisations (including government departments and their agencies, research councils, universities and professional bodies). They are listed at Annex 2 and represent a cross-section through ERFF member organisations, other organisations concerned with the use of science in policy (eg professional bodies and Government agencies), and academia. In addition a literature review was carried out.

5. The review informed a workshop held in June 2005 to consider how the issues can be addressed. Subsequently, the ERFF main board has identified priority areas for further studies leading to recommendations for action to ERFF towards the end of 2006.

6. The interviews and literature review identified six key issues as needing to be addressed as follows:

— the quality of interaction between scientists and policy makers;

— enhancing the framing of questions;

— the overall system for science support to policy and regulation;

— synthesis and communication of science;

— transparency of the science into policy process; and

— roles and mechanisms for the definition of research programmes.

7. The following paragraphs outline the main points made in relation to each of the issues. In asking for views on what needs to be improved, the review risks painting an unduly negative picture: undoubtedly there are many examples across Government of where the science-into-policy process has worked well. A challenge going forward is to ensure that such good practice is adopted more widely.

The quality of interaction between scientists and policy makers

8. The need to enhance the quality of interaction between scientists and policy makers was a point made in different ways by many of the contributors to the review. While that interaction can work well in established areas, for example air quality, it tends to work less well in newer policy areas where relationships between the research and policy communities are less well developed. Differences in motivations, cultures, time-frames and reward structures were identified as obstacles to good communication, with time pressures exacerbating the difficulties.

9. Potential "problems" on the science side were identified as:

— needing to take a broader view, able to take the viewpoint of the policy maker and see how their work fits in;

— recognition of the difference between what is good enough for policy as distinct from publication;

— understanding the role of scientific advisor as explanation, not advocacy;

— understanding what is helpful to the policy maker and naivety about how useful their scientific results are;

— false dichotomy between being a "proper scientist" or a science advisor; and

— recognition that science is just one factor in the policy decision.

10. Similarly on the policy side:

— needing to be more receptive to science: providing more policy pull;

— being scared of evidence: "makes life too complicated" or conflicts with the desired policy line;

— alternatively, being unduly confident in the answer: need to be clearer on what science offers;

— temptation to cherry-pick the results and opinions that back the desired policy line; and

— lack of understanding of science by many career civil servants: under-representation of science in middle and senior ranks.

11. An organisational response favoured by several of the contributors from Government departments and agencies has been to integrate in-house scientific advisory capacity in policy teams, resulting in enhanced dialogue and more coherence. However, concerns were expressed about how to ensure that embedded scientists retain their professional knowledge, links with the scientific community and ability to give an independent view. It was suggested that this is less of a problem for social and economic sciences where professional/organisational links are inherently stronger.

Enhancing the framing of questions

12. Problem formulation was recognised as a key stage. Several contributors felt that science tends not to be involved early enough in establishing policy priorities. Systematic analysis of environmental pressures and the realisation of the potential of current horizon scanning initiatives, as reflected for example in the Defra programme, should enable science to better inform the policy agenda. Science should be tuned into the "front wave of the environmental debate" and provide a creative stimulus to policy formulation. It should also be more engaged with establishing the government's bigger strategic questions, typically originating in Treasury or the Cabinet Office.

13. Policy makers can sometimes have difficulty in posing questions for science that will effectively inform choices between policy options. Their questions tend not to be sufficiently broad and to be too short-term. Constraining assumptions may not be apparent, for example associated with the scientific or decision model, or (as several contributors indicated) due to the dominance of economics in departments' thinking which may screen out broader considerations.

14. Effective public engagement at the framing stage was identified as important but difficult on sensitive issues. Deliberative and inclusive approaches have been promoted (for example in the 21st report of the Royal Commission for Environmental Pollution) but have not yet been widely adopted, and require further development to be effective within resource and time constraints. One contributor indicated that there is a lack of understanding of what is at stake in many public controversies, in particular the public's assumptions, values and concerns.

The overall system for science support to policy and regulation

15. Policy making is recognised as a complex process typically involving many players and influences. It was suggested that we need to develop methodologies to map and understand the policy process for any particular situation in order to inform the development of strategies to ensure science's effective contribution.

16. At the strategic level at which ERFF might contribute, thought should be given to how the UK ensures that it has a "healthy" system for science input to policy, in terms for example of accessibility of expertise, diversity of inputs, productive dialogue, etc. One contributor pointed to the dismantling of the advisory system as constituted in governmental research institutes in the 80's and 90's and the consequent fragmented and unproductively competitive system that exists today. Specific issues raised under the "system" heading are summarised in the following paragraphs.

17. The importance of policy initiatives at the European level was stressed together with the need for organisations within the ERFF umbrella to work effectively together in providing scientific input to the policy formulation process.

18. Several contributors pointed to the need to improve engagement between Government departments and their non-departmental public bodies (NDPB's) and with the research institutes that they support. There was a feeling that there is valuable knowledge that is not making its way through to the policy process, but also concerns that NDPB's and research institutes can write things in a way which is insensitive to the policy context. On this latter point the challenge is how to ensure independence while not being naive.

19. Meetings with professional bodies, the Royal Society and Welcome Trust pointed to the important, but not always realised, contribution of professional bodies, learned societies and charities as independent sources of advice resting on access to broadly based and in-depth expertise. Each indicated that they have strategies in place to be more influential in the policy making arena.

20. Contributors from a number of government departments and NDPB's expressed concerns, exacerbated by current initiatives to "slim down", about having sufficient in-house capacity to interact with other bodies and to act as intelligent customers for science. Translating research outputs to effective advice to policy and drilling down to evaluate the quality of evidence were identified as key but under-resourced activities. Maintaining capacity in the research base was also highlighted as an issue particularly as Departments become more focused in their research programmes.

21. The lack of incentives for researchers to engage with the policy process was mentioned frequently, the Research Assessment Exercise topping the list of negative influences. Appropriate credit needs to flow from sitting on advisory committees and carrying out secondary research to synthesise and summarise others' research findings. Better funding from policy making bodies needs to be put in place to support policy engagement activities.

22. Measuring impact and uptake was identified as important but difficult. Within departments and agencies quality assurance and evaluation systems can have too narrow a focus, and need to be extended to the full science-into-policy process, including the question formulation and policy uptake stages.

Synthesis and communication of science

23. The translational role from research to scientific advice was identified as key. Concerns were expressed that the necessary competencies are in short supply (and indeed are ill-defined) and that staff within government departments and agencies may focus too much on managing R&D programmes at the expense of their translator role. It was recognised that translation happens both in-house and in the research community and that there is a case for strengthening both in order to reduce the research-policy gap.

24. A particular challenge relates to the need to reflect uncertainty and differences of opinion in advice to policy. Returning to the first issue described above, there is a need for an enlightened view shared between policy makers and scientists of the provisional nature of science. The problem is particularly acute when there are high levels of uncertainty about both consequences and their probability. In these circumstances, academic input has pointed to the need for "plural and conditional" advice, but practice in this area is at an early stage of development and can run counter to expectations of a more definitive input from science. A further concern is how different kinds of knowledge—lay/local and expert—can be incorporated in scientific advice.

25. Systematic reviews were identified as of increasing importance as a means of accessing the full breadth of relevant information and avoiding the biasing of policy by selective incorporation of a limited set of research outcomes. The current initiative at Birmingham University to carry out systematic reviews on nature conservation issues was identified as a positive development. However, the extension of synthesis methodologies originating in the health area to less well-constrained environmental issues was recognised as difficult. Also, research useful in a rigorous research context can prove to be in short supply, people with the skills to do synthesis are thin on the ground, and the planning and management of synthesis projects to give outputs useful to policy is challenging.

26. More generally a need was identified for better knowledge management tools to enable better policy access to potentially substantial volumes of research material.

Transparency of the science into policy process

27. Behind the issue of transparency lies a concern expressed by several contributors that the science-into-policy process must engender trust—seen as increasingly important in a society that is more questioning and where everything is open to challenge. Transparency of the evidence base and its use was seen to be essential to successful partnerships in policy advocacy. Transparency was considered to include involvement of stakeholders from the research stage onwards as a prerequisite of buy-in and consensus.

28. Several contributors in government departments and agencies pointed to the need to establish clearer "audit trails" to record how science is used in policy making. While progress has been made on making available research reports, the working of advisory committees etc, explanation of how a policy decision rests on the evidence remains rather patchy. The Freedom of Information Act was expected to be a driver towards a more systematic approach to recording the science into policy process but may make interactions more guarded, particularly between government departments and external bodies.

29. A need to employ structured decision making processes was expressed by one contributor. By making explicit, and allowing deliberation on, "facts" and "values" the impact of science should be enhanced.

Roles and mechanisms for the definition of research programmes

30. Concerns were expressed about current tensions between the research programmes of ERFF members. There was strong support for better co-ordination such that members could rely on others "doing their bit" and to overcome a tendency to discount research funded by others.

31. Some research communities tend to see excellence and usefulness as conflicting requirements (others don't!). This needs to be worked through, including sharper delineations between research with different motivations and better mechanisms to ensure policy uptake if that is the motivation. Research Councils recognise the need to increase their awareness of specific science needs for policy-making, and the need to ensure that relevant staff properly understand the policy-making process.

32. It was felt that there is scope to improve the usefulness to policy making of the directed or managed programmes of the Research Councils. There are some good examples though (some pointed to EPSRC's Sustainable Urban Environment and Flood Risk Management programmes)—good practices need to be captured and promulgated across the Research Councils.

33. Current procurement and programme planning approaches can mean that researchers are reluctant to share their ideas at the problem formulation stage. Mechanisms need to be developed to enable a free exchange of ideas without fear of losing out at the project/contractor selection stage.

NEXT STEPS

34. The baseline review informed a workshop held in June 2005, and involving 50 people from the research and policy communities, to consider how the issues could be addressed (the workshop report is available at: http://www.erff.org.uk/reports/events.asp). Subsequently ERFF has identified three priority areas that will be addressed in 2006:

— the processes of translation and interpretation from research results to inputs which are useful to policy-making and regulation;

— the training needs of the "next generation" of researchers so that they are better able to interact with the policy-making process; and

— the planning and management of the directed programmes of the research councils to enable them to make a greater contribution to policy-making.

CONCLUSION

35. ERFF member organisations recognise the key role that science must play in environmental policy-making and regulation, and have made significant progress already in ensuring that role is fulfilled. Nonetheless, the review has revealed that there remain significant issues that need to be addressed as follows:

— the quality of interaction between scientists and policy makers;

— enhancing the framing of questions;

— the overall system for science support to policy and regulation;

— synthesis and communication of science;

— transparency of the science into policy process; and

— roles and mechanisms for the definition of research programmes.

The priority issues are being tackled by ERFF's on-going programme.

36. We hope that this summary of the ERFF initiative will provide helpful background information to the Select Committee in its forthcoming Inquiry.

January 2006

Annex 1

ERFF MAIN MEMBERS

Defra (Howard Dalton Chair)

Natural Environment Research Council

Environment Agency

Scottish Environment Protection Agency

Department for Transport

Department for International Development

Met Office

Economic and Social Research Council

Scottish Executive

Medical Research Council

Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council

Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council

Annex 2

CONTRIBUTORS TO THE BASELINE REVIEW

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES

— Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra): John Rea, Arwyn Davies, Peter Costigan, Michael Harrison, Steven Hill.

— Department of Health: Jonathan Bickley.

— Department for International Development (DFID): Gareth Martin, Dylan Winder, Peter O'Neill, Simon Anderson, Fiona Power, Abigail Mulhall, Val Snewin, Andrew Long.

— Department for Transport: Robert Sullivan.

— English Nature: Keith Duff.

— Environment Agency: Jim Wharfe, Dave Palmer, Peter Madden, Bob Harris, Helen Wakeham, Steve Killeen.

— Food Standards Agency: Alisdair Wotherspoon.

— Forestry Commission: Steve Gregory.

— Health and Safety Executive (HSE): Paul Davies, John McGuiness.

— Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC): Richard Ferris.

— Met Office: Dave Griggs.

— Office of Science and Technology (OST): Sir Keith O'Nions, Michelle Frew, Jonathan Spencer.

— Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM): David Fisk.

— Scottish Executive, Environment and Rural Affairs Department (SEERAD): Mike Foulis, Ian Bainbridge, Bob Irvine, Nick Ambrose, Helen Jones, Linda Pooley.

— Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA): Chris Spray, Colin Bayes, James Curran, Caspian Richards.

— Welsh Assembly: Havard Prosser.

RESEARCH COUNCILS

— Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC): David Guy, Gary Grubb.

— Engineering and Physical Science Research Council (EPSRC): Peter Hedges, Alison Wall.

— Natural Environment Research Council (NERC): Faith Culshaw.

UNIVERSITIES AND RESEARCH INSTITUTES

— Brunel University: Fred Steward.

— Centre for Ecology and Hydrology (CEH): Pat Nuttall, Ann Calver, John Gash, Graham Leeks.

— Cranfield University: Simon Pollard, Dick Thompson.

— Imperial College / UK Energy Research Centre: Jim Skea.

— London School of Economics: Larry Phillips.