Interdisciplinary Science Collaboration

Of interest to the #Science4Policy community: What steps need to be undertaken, what resources are available to researchers to ensure that the valuable insights of scientific research projects make it to the desks of policymakers? The #Science4Policy team in the European Research Executive Agency (REA) has assembled a quick guide / starter kit to help researchers navigate the complexities found at the science-policy interface. You can find it here: https://lnkd.in/dUr9KPRg Feel free to share widely and leave comments to find further resources that could support any such efforts. Great work by the colleagues Niamh Delaney, Lucía Martín Marco, Konstantinos Gkoumas, and Gergely Tardos. With valuable input by: Dan Balan Encarni Barrionuevo Sánchez Juliane Kammer Martina Kazakova Eleni Zika, PhD Valentina Pierantozzi Estelle Barrillon Lene Topp Chloe Elizabeth Hill and many others. Of interest to: International Network for Governmental Science Advice (INGSA) Scientific Advice Mechanism Alessandro Allegra Barbara Kampis ronan uhel David Mair Mario Scharfbillig Mara Almeida Filipa Vala David Budtz Pedersen PhD Olivia P. Koen Jonkers Karen Fabbri Fara Lledó San Mauro Alexandra Olajos-Szabó Andreas Jenet Minna Wilkki Paul Webb Begoña Arano Tanja Kuchenmuller

Why it’s time to use reskilling to unlock women’s STEM potential: "Women make up just 28% of the global STEM workforce and only 22% of artificial intelligence (AI) professionals. Left unaddressed, this deficit will restrict innovation and economic growth during the reskilling revolution. Fostering collaboration, cultivating mentorship and delivering tailored solutions to country-specific challenges will close the STEM gender gap. Reskilling provides an opportunity to rethink how we are planning for the future of work. We must reconsider not only how we work, but who works. If the Fourth Industrial Revolution is rewriting the rules of work, now is the time to rewrite the rules of opportunity. Enrolment among women in STEM-related university programs has stagnated over the past decade, with the causes of this disparity differing across industries and regions. If left unaddressed, however, it will compound reskilling challenges that are already expected to cost G20 countries more than $11 trillion over the coming decade. Multiple inspiring stories have shown how these barriers can be broken. Ritu Karidhal, one of the 'rocket women' of the Indian Space Research Organization has inspired a rise in the number of women pursuing STEM fields in India. And she is not alone: From Esraa Tarawneh’s work on mitigating flash floods that's helped multiple communities tackle one of our century’s largest environmental threats, to Ayanna Howard’s assistive technologies that are revolutionizing accessibility for children with disabilities, women are pioneering ground-breaking innovations. Gender-diverse teams are also more profitable and productive. Companies in which female representation exceeds 30% are significantly more likely to financially outperform those with less. Gender diverse R&D teams are also more likely to introduce new innovations into the market over a two-year period. The case for closing the gender divide in STEM is clear, but it will persist without deliberate interventions. Women face a variety of barriers to accessing STEM fields and solutions must reflect this reality. In some regions, there will be a need to break stereotypes that dissuade girls from pursuing science. Elsewhere, the challenge will be infrastructure and ensuring access to resources and learning tools. Addressing these intersectional challenges demands localized strategies, which are essential for creating interventions that have enduring impact." Read more 👉 https://lnkd.in/eryKvFxp #MentorMonth #WomenInSTEM #GirlsInSTEM #STEMGems #GiveGirlsRoleModels

🌍 When “quiet” gets labeled as disengaged, global teams pay the price A camera off. A pause before speaking. A thoughtful follow-up sent after the meeting. In too many global teams, these moments get misread as low engagement. But often, they’re not signs of disconnection at all. They’re signs of a different cultural communication style. Edward T. Hall’s high-context/low-context framework helps explain why some professionals show engagement by speaking up fast and visibly, while others show it through observation, timing, and careful reflection. And this matters more than many leaders realize. 📌📌When participation is judged only by who speaks first, keeps their camera on, or fills every silence, global team leaders can unintentionally reward one communication style and overlook another. Leaders may believe they are encouraging engagement, while team members may experience the meeting as a hidden test of whether they know the “right” way to show up. The impact? 😣 Projects slow down because critical insights arrive too late. Feedback gets misread. Quieter contributors pull back. And what should be a strength—cultural diversity—starts feeling like friction instead of fuel. So what can leaders do? Here are five practical shifts: ✅ Redefine what participation looks like Make it explicit that contribution can mean speaking live, adding thoughts in chat, summarizing insights, raising concerns asynchronously, or following up afterward. ✅ Do not make camera use the only signal of commitment Camera-on norms may help some teams connect, but they can also create fatigue, discomfort, and pressure. Use them intentionally, not universally. ✅ Design meetings for multiple communication styles Share agendas in advance, invite written input before the meeting, pause after asking questions, and offer asynchronous follow-up channels. ✅ Normalize silence as data, not disrespect Silence may signal reflection, caution, disagreement, or careful listening. Don’t rush to fill it. ✅ Build cultural competence into hybrid team norms Talk openly about how different cultures signal respect, readiness, and attention. Set shared norms for cameras, turn-taking, response time, and decision-making. Because culturally competent leadership doesn’t just make people feel included. It makes teams smarter. 💡 When leaders stop considering, “Who spoke the most?” and start asking, “How did we make room for different ways of contributing?” they create stronger collaboration, better decisions, and more innovation. And in a world where inefficient meetings are already a major productivity barrier, that shift is not optional. 🌐 If this sounds like your team, it may be time to stop fixing “participation” and start decoding culture. 👉 Want practical tools (not theory) to build cultural competence fast? DM me “CULTURAL CLARITY” and I’ll share the next step. 📩 #CrossCulturalCommunication #HybridWork #InclusiveLeadership #GlobalTeams #CulturalCompetence

“It’s not only a question of fairness. It’s a question of quality.” Ms Lidia Brito said during her opening address. This message resonated strongly with me during the International Day of Women and Girls in Science discussions at UNESCO HQ— because the data is clear: gender balance is not a social luxury; it’s a performance driver. Multiple global studies confirm it: • McKinsey found companies in the top quartile for gender diversity on executive teams are 25% more likely to outperform on profitability. • BCG showed that companies with diverse leadership generate 19% higher innovation revenue. • Deloitte reports that inclusive teams make better decisions up to 87% of the time. And the impact goes far beyond boardrooms. When women are underrepresented in research, the quality of science itself suffers: • Emmanuelle Valentin-Fouchs from Sanofi reported that women are often diagnosed up to 4 years later than men for several diseases because clinical data has historically been male-biased. • In car crashes, women are significantly more likely to be seriously injured or killed — partly because crash-test dummies were long modeled on male bodies. These are not abstract inequalities. They are design flaws in systems built without full representation. Gender balance is not about optics. It is about accuracy. It is about excellence. It is about building a world that works — for everyone. #EveryVoiceInScience #WomenInScience #Leadership #DiversityDrivesInnovation #Inclusion #STEM #EvidenceBasedLeadership

Happy International Women’s Day 💜 A gender gap persists in STEM globally. We’ve made progress, but women are still woefully under-represented. Tackling our greatest challenges - improving health to combating climate change to developing AI as a force for good - must harness all talent. Gender diversity expands and extends the talent pool and is essential as today’s technologies demand different ‘Power’ skills: ▪️Emotional Intelligence: to manage emotions and navigate interpersonal relationships effectively, enhancing teamwork and leadership in STEM ▪️ Collaboration: fostering effective teamwork, with a focus on joint problem-solving ▪️ Adaptability: STEM is moving fast, I see that every day, being able to quickly learn and adjust to is indispensable ▪️ Empathy: drives solutions that truly resonate with human needs ▪️ Creativity: Brings unique perspectives that fuel innovation ▪️ Ethics: development is responsible and beneficial for society However ▫️Women are given smaller research grants and, while 33.3% of all researchers, only 12% of STEM academics are women ▫️In cutting edge fields such as AI, only 1 in five (22%) is a woman ▫️Despite a shortage of skills driving the Fourth Industrial Revolution, women still account for only 28% of engineering and 40% of computer science graduates ▫️Female researchers have shorter, less well-paid careers. Their work is underrepresented in high-profile journals and they are more often passed over for promotion ▫️Although STEM fields are widely regarded as critical to economies, so far most countries have not achieved gender equality in STEM So what? Not only is this unethical, unfair it’s also misinformed, I mean stupid: ▪️The crash test dummy is a classic case. Initially, modelled on the average male body. Women were 47% more likely to be seriously injured and 17% to die in car crashes. Despite efforts, the gap in safety due to a lack of diverse testing persists ▪️Cardiovascular research has long been skewed towards men. Women are 50% more likely to be misdiagnosed with heart attacks and treatment is less effective ▪️Trials for medications did not sufficiently account for gender in pharmacokinetics so dosages were based on male biology, women experience adverse drug reactions nearly 1.7 times more often ▪️Medical devices have focused on male anatomy, for example, women are 20% more likely to have a stroke or die within 30 days of being treated with stents for artery disease ▪️Voice recognition technologies were developed using data from men leading to error rates for women’s voices up to 70% higher ▪️Famously Amazon discovered that its AI-based screening was biased against women favoring male candidates by a significant margin ▪️Facial recognition has error rates of up to 34.7% for dark-skinned women, vs 0.8% for light-skinned men So, should you need it, today is a reminder that women play a critical role in STEMs and that our participation must be strengthened #iwd2024 #BeEqual #GenderEquality #DEI

📍I am pleased to share that my Draft Report on the Specific Programme implementing the next #Horizon Europe Framework Programme (2028–2034) is now available here https://lnkd.in/eQzziUsv At a time of geopolitical fragmentation, accelerating technological competition and an intensifying global race for talent, research policy is no longer a niche policy area, but one that is at the centre of Europe’s long-term competitiveness and resilience. Europe’s strength and strategic autonomy will depend on one thing above all: our ability to generate knowledge and innovation. 🔹For this reason, it is crucial that Horizon Europe remains a strong and autonomous Framework Programme with a robust financial envelope. Its strength lies in a clear intervention logic: excellence as the primary selection criterion, competitive funding and independent expert evaluation supporting frontier science, collaborative research and early-stage innovation where market incentives are weakest. 🔍The draft report therefore focuses on preserving and strengthening the distinctive role of Horizon Europe, while improving its complementarity with the proposed European Competitiveness Fund. 🎓In a global race for talent, Europe must move from brain drain to brain gain. The #ERC’s excellence-based peer-review structure, the training and mobility opportunities provided by #MSCA, and the #EIC’s support for high-risk innovation are central pillars of a research ecosystem that attracts the best minds from across the world. The report also explores a pilot mechanism for sector-specific collaborative research under the “Excellent Science” pillar, enabling research institutions within a scientific field to jointly define long-term research themes and coordinate their strengths. Importantly, this approach remains fully anchored in the ERC’s existing governance model: priorities would be defined by the scientific community itself and evaluated through independent peer review under the authority of the ERC Scientific Council. The objective is stronger expert-led coordination and specialisation within Europe’s research landscape. I will be presenting this draft report in the ITRE Committee on March 24, which can be followed through the link below: https://lnkd.in/en_SvFnR I look forward to the discussions ahead with colleagues in the European Parliament. 📩You are welcome to submit any feedback in the meantime under rene.repasi@europarl.europa.eu

When I first started meeting bureaucrats, policymakers, and politicians while working on air pollution and climate change, I assumed scientific research would naturally lead to better policies. But over time, I kept getting the same response—expressed in different ways. Here, I’m sharing some early experiences that shaped my understanding of this disconnect. 🔹 One of my first experiences was when a very senior officer invited us to discuss solutions. As scientists, we proposed a research-driven approach that would take two to three years. His response? "We have funding that must be spent within a year. We expected practical solutions from you. We can’t wait three years—I might even be transferred before then." 🔹 Another realization came when we proposed analyzing pollution sources. A senior officer responded, "We already know the sources—traffic, industry, construction, waste burning, road dust, cooking fuel, etc. Will your study show anything drastically different?" When we explained that our study would refine insights and reduce uncertainties, his response was: "We don’t care about these nuances right now. That detail matters later, once mitigation efforts are underway. Right now, we need feasible solutions that fit economic, demographic, and practical constraints." Another officer later remarked: "Scientists aren’t here to provide solutions. Their focus is securing funding, publishing papers, and showcasing work to funders." He even cited global reports that had never been downloaded. At that moment, I felt disappointed. But I also realized they weren’t entirely wrong—perhaps even more right than I was. Policymakers work within short funding cycles, shifting priorities, and limited tenures—typically three years for an officer, five for a politician. Their constraints are real, and their approach reflects these realities. 💡 This disconnect between science and policy is a major barrier in sustainability. Scientists seek accuracy, while policymakers need actionable, timely solutions. So, how do we bridge this gap? ✔ Policy-Research Intermediaries – Teams that translate scientific findings into actionable policies. ✔ Adaptive Research Timelines – Delivering short-term, high-impact solutions alongside long-term studies. ✔ Collaborative Working Groups – Scientists, policymakers, and stakeholders aligning research with real-world needs. ✔ Flexible Funding Models – Ensuring funding supports both immediate action and long-term research. 🚀 If we don’t bridge this gap, science remains detached from policy, and policy stays reactive instead of proactive. #AirPollution #ClimateAction #SciencePolicy #Sustainability #Collaboration #ResearchToAction

Excited to share our new paper in Administrative Science Quarterly, with Michaël Bikard and Ronak Mogra: Inventors are significantly less likely to build on scientific ideas when they come from women. We show that gender inequality distorts whose work shapes the future of technology — even when the ideas are the same. Open access here: https://lnkd.in/d4iEAk3p #Innovation #GenderEquity #ScienceAndTechnology #ASQ #lbs

📢 Does science inform policy, or does policy shape how science is used? In this fascinating paper by Maas and colleagues, explores why linear models of science-policy interaction remain dominant, despite widespread agreement on the need for co-productive approaches. 🔎 Key insights from the paper: Using a case study of a Dutch research institute and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs highlights a persistent gap between theory and practice: 🔶  Policymakers seek “science-based” decisions but often struggle to articulate knowledge needs. 🔶  Researchers produce independent, objective reports but frequently lack engagement in policy realities. 💡 The authors argue for a new imaginary of science-policy interaction based on shared but differentiated responsibilities between researchers and policymakers. 🔎 So, what needs to change? 👉 For policymakers, greater engagement in co-creating research questions could help move beyond passive knowledge consumption. 👉 Acknowledging the politics of knowledge, the fact that evidence is shaped by values and priorities, may also improve how science is integrated into decision-making. 👉 For researchers, adopting humility in recognising the value of multiple knowledge sources, beyond traditional academic expertise-can help create more effective collaborations. 👉 Moving from knowledge supply to co-production can also strengthen relationships and ensure research is more useful in practice. The paper highlights that more deliberative, co-productive approaches could enhance both the legitimacy and effectiveness of how knowledge is used in policy. #SciencePolicy #KnowledgeExchange #PolicyEngagement

Over the last two decades or so that I have been researching the international dimensions of national #sciencepolicy, policy-makers in Europe (and elsewhere) have sought to increase the #internationalisation of their research and higher education systems in order to drive increasing research excellence and as a source of soft power and platform for #sciencediplomacy. However, in recent years, rising geopolitical tensions and a renewed sense of systemic political and economic competition have driven a resurgence of interest in technological sovereignty as a source of economic security and increasing efforts to secure the integrity of national research systems in the face of concerns about sattempts to acquire academic research via subterfuge or espionage, or to interfere with academic discourse. This new wave of #researchsecurity concerns is creating significant pressures on national research systems, both directly through laws, regulation and guidance, but also indirectly through media and political scrutiny. In a new report for the Science and Technology Network, we (myself, Andrew James, Alice Naisbitt, John Rigby) examine perceptions of research security threats facing the national research systems of France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden, Spain, Italy and the Czech Republic, and look at their responses in terms of research security policies & practices. What did we find? Most of our seven countries have a set of research performing organisations with relatively well-developed research security practices, plus a wider group with less developed approaches. Technological universities or applied research institutes tend to have more developed approaches whilst smaller and less internationalised institutions tend to be less developed in their response. There is no shortage of guidance and advice - many of our respondents called for simpler, clearer, and quality-assured resources to support cross-border collaboration. Cost and capacity issues present a key challenge where institutions attempt to implement active due diligence and risk assessment practices, or comply with laws and regulations. Most importantly, research system actors and policy-makers alike worry about how to balance research security against the significant benefits of open global scientific exchange, and about avoiding a chilling effect on international collaboration. Read our analysis, and country case studies, here: https://lnkd.in/gvsphb6q