 A Collaboratively-Derived Science-Policy Research AgendaWilliam J Sutherland, Laura Bellingan, Jim R Bellingham, Jason J Blackstock, Robert M Bloomfield, Michael Bravo, Victoria M Cadman, David D Cleevely, Andy Clements, Anthony S Cohen, David R Cope, Arthur A Daemmrich, Cristina Devecchi, Laura Diaz Anadon, Simon Denegri, Robert Doubleday, Nicholas R Dusic, Robert J Evans, Wai Y Feng, H Charles J Godfray, Paul Harris, Sue E Hartley, Alison J Hester, John Holmes, Alan Hughes, Mike Hulme, Colin Irwin, Richard C Jennings, Gary S Kass, Peter Littlejohns, Theresa M Marteau, Glenn McKee, Erik P Millstone, William Nuttall, Susan Owens, Miles M Parker, Sarah Pearson, Judith Petts, Richard Ploszek, Andrew S Pullin, Graeme Reid, Keith S Richards, John G Robinson, Louise Shaxson, Leonor Sierra, Beck G Smith, David J Spiegelhalter, Jack Stilgoe, Andy Stirling, Christopher P Tyler, David E Winickoff and Ron L Zimmern PLOS ONE, 2012, vol. 7, issue 3, 1-5 Abstract: The need for policy makers to understand science and for scientists to understand policy processes is widely recognised. However, the science-policy relationship is sometimes difficult and occasionally dysfunctional; it is also increasingly visible, because it must deal with contentious issues, or itself becomes a matter of public controversy, or both. We suggest that identifying key unanswered questions on the relationship between science and policy will catalyse and focus research in this field. To identify these questions, a collaborative procedure was employed with 52 participants selected to cover a wide range of experience in both science and policy, including people from government, non-governmental organisations, academia and industry. These participants consulted with colleagues and submitted 239 questions. An initial round of voting was followed by a workshop in which 40 of the most important questions were identified by further discussion and voting. The resulting list includes questions about the effectiveness of science-based decision-making structures; the nature and legitimacy of expertise; the consequences of changes such as increasing transparency; choices among different sources of evidence; the implications of new means of characterising and representing uncertainties; and ways in which policy and political processes affect what counts as authoritative evidence. We expect this exercise to identify important theoretical questions and to help improve the mutual understanding and effectiveness of those working at the interface of science and policy. Date: 2012 Downloads: (external link) Related works: Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:plo:pone00:0031824 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031824 Access Statistics for this article More articles in PLOS ONE from Public Library of Science |
Is your work missing from RePEc? Here is how to contribute.
Questions or problems? Check the EconPapers FAQ or send mail to .
EconPapers is hosted by the
School of Business at Örebro University.