What do ecologists have in common with those working in early childhood education? The answer isn’t immediately obvious but a recent article in Science demonstrates that both groups face the same challenges, and can learn the same useful lessons, when engaging with policy-makers.

William T. Gormley Jr. explains that in early childhood education, as in other domains, scientific research informs policy-making and that a straighforward linear model is deficient in explaining how this may happen. Gormley Jr. describes as a ‘hypodermic needle theory’ the idea that a well-crafted piece of science presented to a policy-maker leads to the generation of a well-crafted piece of policy. He cites a study of the U.S. federal policy-making process to illustrate the number of influences, besides consideration of scientific evidence, impinging on policy development: only 15% of respondents to a survey, including congressional staff members and civil servants, judged researchers, academics and consultants as “very important” in informing policy. In contrast, 33% of respondents judged interest groups to be so.

Other reasons why science doesn’t inform policy in a linear fashion include the necessity for scientific evidence to accumulate before a policy position can be developed on this basis; a single piece of scientific research is not likely to be sufficient to enable conclusions to be drawn. Scientific research is also ‘translated, condensed, repackaged and reinterpreted’, Gormley Jr. states, before it is used and information can be lost through this process. Finally, and most interestingly, the author suggests that officials are most likely to use scientific information to justify a position which they already hold, rather than that this evidence persuades them to adopt a different course of action. Gormley Jr. describes this as ’strategic use’ of scientific evidence.

Early education researchers (and ecologists) can take several steps to make sure that their research is used by policy-makers. The first is to make sure that outputs are short and easily readable (the author cites a study that suggests that the average length of documents read, and not disgarded, by policy officials, is 2.91 pages). If research is of high quality it is also more likely to be used. Gormley Jr. highlights the importance of relationship building to the effective translation of research into policy: “the influence of research on policy-makers is typically greater when, before a policy debate, researchers and public officials enjoy a relationship of trust and mutual respect… Researchers are encouraged to “conceptualize policy-work not as disseminating research to policy-makers but as developing relationships with them”".

The author calls for scientists to ‘develop or support institutions that faciliate connections between citizens and scientists and between scientists and public officials’ (a strong commendation for Learned Societies such as the BES), and highlights the role of universities in providing information to non-profit groups wishing to influence policy-making – remaining non-partisan by engaging with as wide a variety of groups as possible.

In conclusion, Gormley Jr. suggests that ’scientists who expect to see their latest research findings transformed into public policy are likely to be disappointed’ but that scientists who adjust their expectations as to what they can acheive are likely to discover ‘how powerful science can be’. He calls for scientists to produce more digestible policy briefs, to engage with policy-making colleagues regularly and to frame issues so that public officials can understand their significance. Those scientists wishing to engage with policy-makers should take heart; encouragingly, the same study that revealed that only 15% of officials felt that scientists were “very important” to policy development also found that 51% of respondents felt that they were “somewhat important”.

The Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) is calling for the appointment of a Science Minister at the Scottish Government.

Outlining the rationale for this post, CaSE state that “Science and engineering has an impact, and is affected by a huge range of government activities – so a failure to adequately represent them could lead to Scotland falling behind in the global high-tech race.”

CaSE has written a letter to First Minister Alex Salmond MSP, asking that the SNP Government create a Science Minister role, which, importantly, is not tokenistic but has real power to influence decision-making.

An article on the CaSE blog outlines the current state of science and higher education in Scotland, the challenges the country faces in this regard, and how the absence of a Science Minister compares to the situation in other nations.

CaSE is looking for support from individuals and organisations for its call. Contact the CaSE Director for more information.

Wildlife and Countryside Link is seeking an individual to cover the maternity leave of Director Jodie Bettis. This position will involve managing Link’s relationships with funders, trustees and external organisations, alongside developing and implementing policy positions.

The post is available for 12-months from December. More information is available from the Link website.

Lord Krebs FRS, Chair of the House of Lords Science and Technology Committee, criticised the UK Government on the Radio Four ‘Today’ programme this morning, accusing ministers of ‘ignoring’ scientific evidence by sanctioning a badger cull. Secretary of State Caroline Spelman MP announced the cull on Tuesday in a statement to the House of Commons. Lord Krebs questioned why the National Farmers Union, also speaking on the programme, were in favour of a cull, when the evidence shows that farmers located nearby to the cull sites, but not themselves participating, would experience a higher incidence of the disease as a result of the intervention.

In delivering her statement to the Commons, Caroline Spelman stated that ‘doing nothing is not an option’, given the devastating impact of bovine TB on the livlihoods of farmers and of rural communities. Outlining why vaccination of badgers and cattle is not yet an option to control the disease, the Secretary of State commented that ‘a useable and approved cattle vaccine and oral badger vaccine are much farther away than we thought and we cannot say with any certainty if and when they will be ready‘. Instead, the proposal is for a controlled cull in England, with Natutal England issuing licenses to groups of farmers and landowners who then commit to paying, at their own expense, trained experts to shoot free running badgers across an area of 150 km2 for a minimum period of four years. There will be two pilots in year one, to assess the efficacy of shooting and whether badgers have been killed humanely.

The potential effectiveness of the cull is a hotly debated issue within science, as Professor Krebs’ appearance this morning illustrates. Professor Krebs oversaw an initial review of the evidence for the transmission of TB between cattle and badgers in 1997. As a result of his recommendations, the Independent Scientific Group (ISG) was established to oversee the 10-year Randomised Badger Culling Trial (RBCT), which published its final report in 2007. The ISG showed that reactive culling increased the incidence of TB in cattle, making this unacceptable as a future policy option. Proactive culling, carried out over an area of 100 km2, reduced the incidence of bovine TB but this beneficial effect was offset by an increase in disease in un-culled areas. The group concluded that this was due to ‘perturbation’; the disruption of the badgers’ territorial social groups, causing the animals to roam and so spread the disease into uninfected areas.

The ISG concluded that badger culling could not meaningfully contribute to the future control of cattle TB in Britain. And yet, Caroline Spelman was adamant in the House on Tuesday that Defra’s policy is science-led and evidence-based. The scientific community does seem to be split on this issue. Several members of the ISG wrote a letter to the Times on 13th July, calling for the ‘untested and risky’ approach of badger control by shooting to be carefully monitored, whilst nine other members of the ISG were cited by Caroline Spelman this week as supporting a badger cull.

A group of independent scientific experts assembled by the Defra Chief Scientific Advisor, and including Lord Krebs, met on 4th April this year to consider the evidence and make recommendations to Defra. This group concluded that the science base (the RBCT and subsequent follow-up studies) indicates that a proactive badger cull resulted in a beneficial effect compared to areas where no cull took place. Perturbation was transient and that 12-18 months after the cull, this effect subsided. However they concluded too that the more a badger policy deviates from the conditions of the RBCT, the more likely it is that the outcome will differ; this presumably includes shooting of free-running badgers, which was untested by the RBCT, which instead trapped badgers in cages before shooting them.

The experts conclude that culling must be coordinated and sustained, over a minimum area of 150km2 and for a minimum period of four years, to avoid making matters worse. They suggest that the incidence of disease could be reduced by 20-34% after nine and a half year period, but given the perturbation effect in the area surrounding the cull locations, the net benefit would be likely to be smaller (between 3% and 24%).

Professor Krebs argued this morning that the cost of a badger cull would far outweigh the benefits; given that the total disease incidence would be eight of herds experiencing TB breakdowns in hot-spots, compared to nine out of ten herds. Questions to Caroline Spelman in the Commons earlier this week revealed that Defra will need to pay £200,000 annually to cover extra cost of policing which will be needed to deal with protests against the cull, whilst Caroline Spelman herself commented that it would ‘cost a modest amount more’ to include culling within the measures needed to deal with bovine TB in Britain. The Secretary of State suggested that reducing the social impacts of herd breakdowns, to farmers and rural livlihoods, would outweigh these monetised costs.

That was the first question posed at last night’s Science Question Time, held at Imperial College, and which kick-started an evening of lively discussion between panellists, audience members and followers on Twitter (#SciQT). A podcast of the event is now available.

Bob Ward, Director of Policy and Communications at the LSE Grantham Institute, suggested that in today’s straightened economic climate researchers and UK universities, need to get better at demonstrating why the research they conduct should receive funding. The need to demonstrate impact from publicly funded research is not simply driven by the economic climate, he suggested, but is a shift that is here to stay.

Bob was in favour of the Research Excellence Framework’s (REF) emphasis on ‘impact’ – with 20% of the overall assessment based on this – challenging those researchers who see this as a distraction from the business of ‘real science’ to change their mindset. A major challenge with the REF, Bob suggested, was that academics feel that they have received little guidance about how to write their Impact Assessments. He predicted a ‘fiasco’ if further information wasn’t forthcoming.

This point was challenged by Jonathan Haskel, an economist based at Imperial, who suggested that there was more guidance available than Bob suggested. David Sweeney, Director for Research, Innovation and Skills at HEFCE – leading the REF – also suggested that the research community needed to embrace and to ‘own’ the impact agenda, working with the Research Councils to improve and refine guidance on ‘pathways to impact’ – the plans which researchers must now produce to demonstrate how they will attempt to gain maximum impact for their research results.

A PhD student from the Institute of Child Health at Imperial raised an interesting point from the audience, questioning whether scientists’ credibility could be damaged if they suggested at the beginning of a project the likely impact which would result years later. At the end of the project, the student suggested, trust in scientists and in science could be damaged if the impact didn’t materialise. Bob Ward agreed that the encouragement of ‘marketing’ by researchers, with the impact agenda potentially encouraging overexaggeration of the likely benefits of research, was an issue. However, he argued that this was an area which could be tackled through greater professionalisation of the evaluation of impact – as researchers could not assess their own impact objectively. Researchers do have to get better at promoting what they have actually, and may realistically, achieve through their work however, he commented.

Alice Bell, Imperial College, raised an important point from the floor; commenting that the REF as it is framed at present does not capture adequately the impact which scientists can generate through participation in wider networks: the REF examines impact by institution. Bob Ward encouraged the academic community to engage with the REF to ensure that it captures what researchers are actually doing in order for their research to have impact. If these activities are not captured within the REF, there is a danger that they will cease, as people are incentivised towards those activities which do have a place in the Framework.

A lively discussion ensued to end the evening, regarding whether or not skilled communicators of science, such as Prof. Brian Cox, should be entered into the REF by their institution. Jonathan Haskell felt that it was justified that he would not be, as he was communicating not about his own research but about the research of others: the REF rewards public engagement as it relates to a researcher’s own body of work. Panellist Philip Campbell, Editor in Chief of Nature, felt strongly however that Brian Cox, and other scientists actively engaging the public in science, should be included in the REF for this work, therefore incentivising universities to employ and nurture such people.

Suggestions for topics for future Science Question Time events would be welcomed by the organisers. Email Rebecca Smith at the Biochemical Society with your ideas.

The event was co-organised by CaSE and the Biochemical Society, together with staff at Imperial College. James Wilsdon, Director of the Science Policy Centre at the Royal Society, was in the chair.

Today’s policy lunchbox organised by the Biochemical Society focussed on opportunities for influencing science policy in the devolved nations post election. A brief presentation led by Hilary Leevers from Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE) preceded a discussion about the next steps for science policy work in the devolved nations.
16% of the UK’s population live in the devolved nations. Responsibility for primary, secondary and higher education has been devolved as well as some aspects of health policy and rural affairs policy.

CaSE have campaigned on science and engineering issues, by engaging MP’s, providing information to support policy making, and raising awareness of science as issue which interests voters. In the run up to the election in the devolved nations CaSE campaigned for the political parties in the devolved nations to include measures to promote science and engineering in their manifestoes.
These measures included:
- Appointing/ keeping a chief scientific advisor or science minister
- Increasing the number of Welsh speaking science graduates entering the teaching profession. 25% of schools in Wales teach at least 50% of their lessons in Welsh.
- Improving the science content of devolved nations’ school curricula. In Northern Ireland there is no requirement to teach maths and science post 14.
- Increasing the stability of funding in higher education institutions. Whilst funding for higher education Scotland appears to be fairly stable funding for higher education is increasingly unstable in Wales and Northern Ireland.
- Examining differences in funding for research in science and engineering between England and the devolved nations. Whilst the devolved nations have tended to spend more than England on research through the higher education teaching grant and the quality related research grant both Wales and Northern Ireland lack the critical mass to attract significant amounts of research council funding.

Pre-election CaSE sent out letters to the political parties of the devolved nations to ask them about their science and engineering policies, and analysed their manifestoes. The response to the letters was very good, with only 2 of 14 parties not replying. The Scottish National Party confirmed that the role of Chief Scientific Advisor will be retained after the election, and Welsh labour also pledged to keep their chief scientific advisor, and publish a science strategy for Wales later this year. Scotland is a leader on scientific issues, and many politicians see this as a source of national pride. Allowing the devolved nations to lead could be very productive for science policy.

The discussion that followed focussed on identifying areas of science policy in which success is likely to be achieved, and the lessons that can be learned from the devolved nations.

The devolved nations could act as a source of information for Westminster policy formation. For example the abolition of SATs at KS2 in Wales provides an excellent example of how case studies from the devolved nations could be useful in informing policy in England. A study by the Wellcome Trust showed that when SATs were abolished science subjects were still highly regarded by pupils and teachers several years later, suggesting that abolition of SATs in England is not likely to have a negative effect on science.

Finally the knowledge base built up by CaSE might prove useful if Scotland decide to separate from the union, and will allow us to hypothesise what might happen if this decision is made. It is possible research institutions in Scotland, which are highly reliant on Research Council funding, might loose a large proportion of their finances if the nation decides to leave the union.

The only main UK Government Department without a Chief Scientific Advisor has today announced that they have appointed one; James Richardson, an internal appointment. Richardson is Director of Public Spending at the Treasury and has a PhD in economics. He will retain his current post whilst taking on the role as CSA.

See the full news at the Nature Blog, including comments from the Campaign for Science and Engineering.

‘Landscapes of the Future’ the new Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology POSTnote written by the current BES POST fellow Eleanor Kean was launched today. ‘Landscapes of the Future’ focuses on the benefits that we derive from our landscapes, and the increasing pressures facing continued delivery of these benefits.

It has been widely established, following the release of the National Ecosystem Assessment, that we gain a variety of benefits and services from the environment including food, clean water, recreation and protection from natural disaster. However these benefits are threatened by the way in which we use land, often exploiting landscapes for a single purpose, without considering the wider detrimental effects.

Demographic change is increasing the pressure we place on land to provide the ecosystem services on which we rely. This coupled with environmental and climate change, societal attitudes and the policy environment will change the way in which we use land over the coming years. It is important to manage the challenges facing the natural environment through existing policies, and also through innovation and novel techniques.

Eleanor identifies opportunities for future landscape planning to adapt to these pressures, and provide multifunctional landscapes that ease competition between different land uses. Many opportunities have arisen as a result of proposed reforms of the planning system, abolition of regional spatial strategies, and introduction of a new National Planning Policy Framework. The establishment of Ecological Restoration Zones as recommended by the Lawton review ‘Making Space for Nature’ are also likely to play a key part in securing ecosystem services for future generations.

Localism may be expected to affect the way landscapes are managed, and the POSTnote emphasises the importance of allowing communities to access good information about the environment, facilitating local people to make good decisions. Green Infrastructure also has great potential to deliver environmental, social and economic benefits. An integrated approach to land use planning is another key message of the POSTnote which recommends that Government departments work together to achieve desirable environmental, social and economic outcomes.

The British Ecological Society’s Policy Team attended a meeting at the building of the National Assembly for Wales on Tuesday, for a day of presentations from academics working in applied research across the country. The event, ‘Science at the Assembly, was organised by the Royal Society of Chemistry, in partnership with others including the Society of Biology and Campaign for Science and Engineering. Presentations were followed by a networking reception attended by Assembly Members.

One of the most interesting presentations during the day was from Prof. John Harries, appointed Chief Science Advisor to the Welsh Government in 2010. Prof. Harries, alongside a Science Advisory Committee, is drafting a science strategy for Wales, which will launch in the autumn of this year. In response to questioning from Dr Hilary Leevers of CaSE, Prof. Harries confirmed that this will set out a 10-year framework for science, engineering and technology in Wales – a step beyond the Westminster Government which has resisted calls for a long-term science and innovation investment framework.

Prof. Harries outlined the ‘grand challenges’ upon which the science strategy will focus: health and life sciences; energy, environment and low carbon; advanced engineering and materials. Alongside these three themes there will be an emphasis on education and STEM outreach activity, on digital infrastructure and the economy, on intellectual property and on blue-skies reasearch.

Prof. Harries was clearly enthusiastic about the prospects for research in Wales, seeing research and development as one of the few ways to build Wales into a more prosperous economy. He stressed that researchers needed to look beyond other institutions within Wales when considering the formation of collaborative partnerships, needing to look across Europe. Realistically, he said, this would mean partnerships with centres of excellence in England, highlighting Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial as important centres for collaboration.

Although a large protest outside the Assembly building may have kept Members away from the scientific content of the day, a number were in evidence in the evening. Opening the evening through brief speeches it was clear that those AMs present were looking to the scientists and scientific organisations present to provide them with advice and information. This was a welcome call to the learned societies and others represented, including this BES, which will be sure to capitalise upon this invitation.

The launch of the results of the UK’s National Ecosystem Assessment is highly anticipated and now expected early in June. The BES is organising a session at our Annual Meeting (11-14 September at the University of Sheffield) to explore ‘what next’ for the NEA. How will the results inform future Government policy across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and how can the research community build on the findings of the Assessment?

A number of invited speakers will introduce this topic, and also discuss how the formation of the Intergovernmental Science Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) may inform how the results of the NEA are used in the UK.

If you are conducting research which demonstrates how the results of the NEA could, or are, being taken forward, submit an abstract for consideration: four 15-minute speaking slots are available.

Abstract submission and registration for the BES Annual Meeting are now open, but hurry as the abstract submission deadline is the 22nd of May. The deadline for early-bird registration is 1st July.

Full details of how to submit an abstract and how to register for the meeting are available from the BES website.

The session is being organised jointly with the UK Biodiversity Research Advisory Group (BRAG).