Teaching scientific evidence and critical thinking for policy making.

While there is worldwide tendency to promote the use of scientific evidence to inform policy making, little has been done to train scientists and policy makers for this interaction. If we want to bridge the gap between academia, scientific knowledge, and policy, we must begin by providing formal training and skill building for actors and stakeholders. Scientists are not trained to communicate and inform policy, and policy makers are not trained to understand scientific process and assess evidence. Building an environment where this collaboration can flourish depends on teaching competencies and abilities specific for decision-making processes. As professors of policy with a background in science, we have started teaching preliminary courses on the use of scientific evidence in policy making. Feedback from students and institutions has been positive, paving the way for similar courses in other schools and institutions and maybe even new career paths. This article is intended to share our experience in designing and teaching courses aimed at training policy makers. Moving forward we plan to include training for science majors, thus encompassing the two main sides of this dialogue and opening new career opportunities for scientists and policy makers.

Beyond the sheltering academic silo: Norms for scientists' participation in policy.

Over the past 75 years, the relationship between science and policy has been transformed as U.S. government priorities shifted from basic research post-World War II toward scientific knowledge that contributes to societal decision-making and spurs innovation. These macrolevel forces have restructured the landscape in which scientists interact with policymakers, creating new norms for their involvement in policy. This chapter focuses specifically on legislatures as one of the most consequential fora for policy decisions, but also hyperpolitical because of its representative function in democracies. In interviews, legislative staff in the U.S. Congress, who serve as gatekeepers for the flow of policy-relevant information, embrace a wide range of norms for scientists' involvement, but they also cite concerns about the effects of redefining these boundaries on scientists' authority. Researchers and their institutions should be aware of these broad trends in conceptualizing and strategizing their approaches to societal impact.

#CienciaenelParlamento: la necesidad de una oficina parlamentaria de asesoramiento científico y tecnológico / #CienciaenelParlamento: the need for a parliamentary office of science and technology advice

Uno de los objetivos de la iniciativa ciudadana #CienciaenelParlamento es contribuir al establecimiento de una oficina parlamentaria de asesoramiento científico y tecnológico en las Cortes Generales. Dicha oficina estaría encargada de favorecer espacios de confluencia entre el conocimiento científico y las políticas públicas, y fomentar el debate entre políticos, expertos y la sociedad en general. En este artículo se revisan los principales mecanismos parlamentarios de asesoramiento científico, con especial atención a uno de ellos: las oficinas parlamentarias de asesoramiento científico y tecnológico. Estas oficinas existen en 22 parlamentos en todo el mundo, pero en España no. En segundo lugar, se describe la acción realizada por #CienciaenelParlamento en su colaboración con el Congreso de los Diputados durante la XII Legislatura, que culminó con unas jornadas en noviembre de 2018 en las que más de 200 científicos y casi 100 diputados debatieron sobre 12 temas de actualidad con el conocimiento científico más actualizado. Gracias a esta colaboración, el Congreso ha dado los primeros pasos para el establecimiento oficial de una oficina de asesoramiento científico. Por último, se exponen algunos ejemplos de cómo la acción de estas oficinas parlamentarias de asesoramiento científico y tecnológico en otros países se imbrica con la de otros agentes para un mayor debate público y la tramitación de mejores políticas públicas en temas de salud y otras áreas. Como conclusión, desde #CienciaenelParlamento creemos que una oficina asesora ayudaría a enriquecer el ecosistema ciencia-política en España. (AU)

One of the aims of the citizen's initiative #CienciaenelParlamento is helping to establishing a parliamentary office of scientific and technological advice in the Spanish parliament. Said office would be in charge of fostering networking spaces between scientific knowledge and public policies and of triggering public debate between policy-makers, experts and the general public. In this article, we first review the main parliamentary mechanisms of scientific advice, with special attention to one in particular: parliamentary offices of scientific and technological advice. These offices exist in 22 parliaments worldwide, but there are none in Spain. Second, we describe the activity undertaken by #CienciaenelParlamento in its collaboration with the Congress of Deputies during the 12th Spanish Legislature. This collaboration reached its peak with a two-day networking event in November 2018 with over 200 scientists and almost 100 deputies, who all debated twelve topics of social interest and the most up-to-date scientific knowledge. Thanks to this collaboration, the Congress has taken the first steps towards officially establishing a parliamentary science advice office. Lastly, we enumerate some examples about how these parliamentary offices in other countries have contributed with other stakeholders to better public debate and processing of public policies in public health and other areas. To conclude, we at #CienciaenelParlamento believe that a parliamentary science advice office would help to enhance the science-policy ecosystem in Spain. (AU)

Bringing Policymakers to Science Through Communication: A Perspective From Latin America.

Scientific knowledge should be shared beyond academic circles in order to promote science in policymaking. Science communication increases the understanding of how the natural world works and the capacity to make informed decisions. However, not every researcher has the ability to master the art of communicating, and even less in a clear, concise, and easy to understand language that society representatives appreciate. Within the huge and extraordinarily diverse Latin American region, science communication has been going on for at least 200 years, when the first science stories appeared in the newspapers, as well as the first science museums and botanical gardens were founded. Nevertheless, resources are limited, and notably time, which researchers spend mostly in mentoring, ensuring funding, publication of their results and laboratory work, while science journalists are an endangered species. This perspective article aims at providing some recommendations to build bridges between science and decision-making parties through communication, by exploring how Latin American diplomats and policymakers engage with scientific knowledge.

The Vera Causa of Endangered Species Legislation: Alfred Newton and the Wild Bird Preservation Acts, 1869-1894.

During the mid-nineteenth century, the eminent British zoologist Alfred Newton recognized that some of the ideas embedded in Origin of Species provided new scientific rationales for the preservation of endangered species. He then embarked on a twenty-five-year-long campaign for law reforms and successfully lobbied Parliament to enact three new statutes for the preservation of endangered wild birds that gave priority to the scientific value of rare species. The account of Newton's campaign presented in this article helps to locate Newton in the nineteenth century conservation movement, while also shining a side light on the relationship between conservation science and policy-making more generally, including the variety of voices and approaches taken to conservation in the UK and US. Today, as we pursue new regulatory responses to critical environmental issues, such as biodiversity loss and climate change, the history of Newton's campaign offers an early example of a successful approach to science-based law reform. It also shows how some of the issues that Newton and his contemporaries confronted at the science-policy interface in the nineteenth century are enduring and remain relevant today, including debates about; the role of scientist-advocates in policy-making, the criteria that make science advice effective, and whether the "democratization" of science leads to better policy decisions.

[#CienciaenelParlamento: the need for a parliamentary office of science and technology advice]. / #CienciaenelParlamento: la necesidad de una oficina parlamentaria de asesoramiento científico y tecnológico.

One of the aims of the citizen's initiative #CienciaenelParlamento is helping to establishing a parliamentary office of scientific and technological advice in the Spanish parliament. Said office would be in charge of fostering networking spaces between scientific knowledge and public policies and of triggering public debate between policy-makers, experts and the general public. In this article, we first review the main parliamentary mechanisms of scientific advice, with special attention to one in particular: parliamentary offices of scientific and technological advice. These offices exist in 22 parliaments worldwide, but there are none in Spain. Second, we describe the activity undertaken by #CienciaenelParlamento in its collaboration with the Congress of Deputies during the 12th Spanish Legislature. This collaboration reached its peak with a two-day networking event in November 2018 with over 200 scientists and almost 100 deputies, who all debated twelve topics of social interest and the most up-to-date scientific knowledge. Thanks to this collaboration, the Congress has taken the first steps towards officially establishing a parliamentary science advice office. Lastly, we enumerate some examples about how these parliamentary offices in other countries have contributed with other stakeholders to better public debate and processing of public policies in public health and other areas. To conclude, we at #CienciaenelParlamento believe that a parliamentary science advice office would help to enhance the science-policy ecosystem in Spain.

Policy responses and government science advice for the COVID 19 pandemic in the Philippines: January to April 2020.

In this paper we examine two policy questions about the COVID 19 pandemic in the Philippines. These are science informed policy questions that will have to take into consideration a large degree of uncertainties in outcomes. The first question is on when to lift the Enhanced Community Quarantine (ECQ) as informed by epidemiological modelling. The second deals on how the Philippines can respond to a future pandemic crisis. We review the Philippine government's responses and introduce the complicating scientific, social, and political contexts for both questions and address proposals for strengthening the science advisory structures. We propose a permanent science advisory body for emergencies with the widest source of expertise as needed.

Supporting Scientific Advice through a Boundary Organization.

The complex socio-environmental issues faced by society - including climate change, resource management, and fostering resiliency in landscapes that intermix human and natural features - are difficult challenges that demand contextually appropriate evidence-based interventions. Institutional arrangements for providing scientific advice range from individual science advisors to large scientific committees or advisory councils, with a great deal of variation in their formal and informal structures. Regardless of the structuring of advisors, however, these arrangements face a common challenge: being required to speak to a wide range of issues in a time-sensitive manner, each of which has extensive stakeholder communities, deep disciplinary knowledge, and many complicating attributes. It is argued that creating a formally associated, supporting boundary organization that is tasked with supporting the advisory functions can help to resolve this challenge and improve the overall quality of advice offered. Using a case study - the California Ocean Science Trust and its advice on coastal and ocean management issues - it is argued that boundary organizations can help science advisors maintain links with disparate stakeholder communities, adjudicate between competing forms of expertise, help to provide nuance in grappling with the tensions between science and politics, and support an "honest broker" advising function.