Science Policy in Collaborative Research

📍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

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

The research article “Navigating Sustainability Transitions: A Science for Policy Approach”, published in Sustainable Production and Consumption, harks back to the origins of my intellectual development at the Institute of Social Ecology in Vienna (environmental sociology, industrial ecology, and ecological economics) and reflects on these foundations through two decades of research in Australia at CSIRO. Three takeaways I’m carrying forward: Transitions are systemic, not just technical. Efficiency gains and clean tech matter, but they rarely deliver sustainability on their own. Progress depends on reshaping systems of provision, institutions, incentives, and the redefinition of “prosperity” within planetary boundaries. Science-for-policy works best as co-production. Not a linear pipeline, but an iterative cycle: shared visioning, scenario-based assessment and deliberation, mobilising investment and capabilities, and continuous monitoring so policy can adapt under uncertainty. Traction comes from linking big goals to actionable shifts. Key leverage points sit in industry, cities, energy, land, and culture, but durable change requires legitimacy: aligning what politics needs (credible institutions and metrics), what business needs (viable models and signals), and what communities need (fairness, meaning, and agency).

📄🎄 Cindy Lopes Bento, Maikel Pellens and I have a new paper forthcoming in 𝘙𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘗𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘺, which turned out to be an early Christmas gift. It speaks to a policy question that is becoming increasingly important. Translational R&D programs, designed to blend public research funding with commercialization objectives, now play a central role in innovation policy, especially in industry-science collaborations. As the division of labor between universities and firms deepens, policymakers place growing emphasis on these programs. Yet we still know surprisingly little about what participation in such schemes means for scientists themselves: their productivity, research direction, and collaboration patterns. In this paper, we address that gap by studying the EU's Eurostars program, a flagship example of competitively co-funded industry-science collaboration. We analyze how first-time participating scientists' research outcomes change when they enter a translational funding scheme. A key contribution is methodological. Exploiting a unique budget allocation rule, we are able to provide causal evidence (still scarce in this literature) on the effects of translational funding, going beyond standard regression-discontinuity designs. Our results show no negative impact on scientific productivity or research direction. Instead, participation leads to a substantial increase in industry co-authored publications (around 25%), without pushing scientists toward more applied research topics. These effects are particularly strong for early-career researchers, scientists in public research organizations, and ICT fields, and they persist well beyond the duration of the program. Given the strong policy momentum behind translational funding programs in Europe and beyond, we believe this evidence is timely and important. 🔗 Open-access link: https://lnkd.in/dx2-bnEi

🌍 The Geography of Science Has Fundamentally Shifted — Here's What Policymakers Need to Know New NBER research tracking 44M publications (1980-2022) reveals a seismic realignment: 📊 THE DATA: • US share of global publications: 40% → 15% • China's share: near-zero → 32% (leading globally, including 35% of top-tier journals) • Middle/low-income countries: now 21% of output but <5% of elite science ⚠️ THE PROBLEM: Despite China's production surge, 60-68% of citations to Chinese research stay within China. Elite research still focuses disproportionately on US topics (40% of breakthroughs). We're seeing democratization AND fragmentation simultaneously. 💡 FIVE POLICY PRIORITIES: 1️⃣ STRATEGIC INVESTMENT Protect comparative advantages (US: biomedical sciences; China: engineering/physical sciences) while emerging economies build quality infrastructure 2️⃣ CROSS-BORDER COLLABORATION Joint funding programs, shared data infrastructure, and scientific mobility programs that reward international cooperation 3️⃣ EQUITABLE RECOGNITION Diversify editorial boards, harmonize evaluation systems, reduce Western-centric bias in journal gatekeeping 4️⃣ GLOBAL CHALLENGE ALIGNMENT Incentivize research addressing climate, health, and development priorities affecting underrepresented regions 5️⃣ KNOWLEDGE DIFFUSION Open science practices, lower access barriers, strengthen translation from breakthrough to application globally 🎯 THE STAKES: Science is already multipolar. The question is whether we build the connective tissue for this distributed system to serve global innovation — or watch it fragment into isolated silos. Policy choices made now will determine whether emerging scientific powers integrate into or diverge from the global knowledge network. #SciencePolicy #Innovation #GlobalScience #PolicyMaking

👩🔬 Are you conducting groundbreaking agricultural research but struggling to communicate your findings effectively to policymakers—and turn your innovations into real-world solutions for EU farmers? In order for researchers to be heard and make sure their knowledge, ideas, and solutions reach the market and the farmer, they need to gain a better understanding of the "language" policymakers speak and become fluent. 🔍 The Reality Check: Scientists focus on precision, long-term discovery, and managing uncertainty Policymakers need quick decisions, practical solutions, and clear recommendations Result: Brilliant research on climate adaptation, sustainability, and innovation never reaches the farmers who need it most 📊 The 2025 Game Changer: The EU's new Vision for Agriculture and Food has shifted priorities from systemic transformation to farmer competitiveness. This creates both challenges AND unprecedented opportunities for researchers who know how to engage effectively. 🎯 Insights from the EU's own science-policy training programs: ✅ Timing is everything - When policymakers say "soon," they mean days, not months ✅ Relevance trumps perfection - They need policy options, not molecular mechanisms ✅ Relationships matter - Trust and networks determine impact more than publication count ✅ Communication is key - 2-page policy briefs beat 200-page technical reports 💡 The Bottom Line: Europe's agricultural challenges—climate adaptation, sustainability transitions, economic viability—are too important for policymakers to solve without YOUR research. But findings remain invisible unless we learn to engage on policy terms. 🔗 In this article, you can find the comprehensive guide covering:  • The 5 critical barriers blocking research from reaching policy (+ solutions)  • 4 strategic roles researchers can play in EU policy engagement  • Complete action plan from research to policy impact  • Real success stories and measurement frameworks 👉 What's been your biggest challenge in translating research into policy impact? Did you have any helpful insights to share with the research community? Please comment! #AgrifoodResearch #EUSciencePolicy #CAP #EuropeanAgriculture #ScienceCommunication #PolicyImpact #ResearchTranslation #AgriculturalInnovation #EvidenceBasedPolicy

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

📢 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

🌟 New Publication Alert! 🌟 Lifting the veil on the biggest challenges for successful evidence-informed policymaking. Our latest research offers insights through the eyes of Science for Policy (S4P) professionals across Europe. 🏛️🔬 Through an exploratory survey analysis conducted with 500 S4P professionals in the EU, we've uncovered a strong readiness among scientists, policymakers, and intermediaries to utilize scientific knowledge more effectively. Yet, this eagerness is stifled by a lack of a systematic approach to bringing policymakers and scientists together. Key Messages: - Fragmentation within S4P ecosystems is seen as significant barrier to productive science-policy interactions - There's a shared desire for better S4P skills on both sides calling for better trainings and skill development - Knowledge translation capacities and institutional support to enhance S4P ecosystems is needed - There is generally substantive agreement across professional groups (knowledge producers, users and brokers) on all the challenge priorisation. We see this report as a call to action to strengthen the European S4P ecosystems. By addressing these shared challenges, we can move towards a future where scientific evidence is not only available but integral to the policymaking process. Great work together with Kristian Krieger Lorenzo Melchor Mara Almeida Giuseppe Cannata Marie Sophie Mayer. Full report here: https://lnkd.in/eBxSr9CQ Limitation of the study: It is based on a convenience sample of interested people. More research needed to see if these perceptions hold more broadly. #SciencePolicy #EUResearchCommunity #PolicyInnovation #EvidenceInformedDecisionMaking #KnowledgeExchange David Mair Bernard Magenhann EU Science, Research and Innovation Jolita Butkevičienė Peter Gluckman Vanessa McBride Vivi Stavrou Athina Manta Lene Topp Koen Jonkers Alessandro Allegra Stephane Jacobzone Jaakko Kuosmanen David Budtz Pedersen PhD Louis Meuleman