Science Policy Development and Implementation

How can we successfully transform scientific research results into Government policy? This book chapter presents innovative processes that have been developed in University College Cork and used to bridge the interface between the research ecosystem and policy-making ecosystem. Available here https://lnkd.in/evFNv9Hu. While the insights can apply across many areas of policy, the specific example here focuses on how energy systems modelling has been used to inform energy and climate mitigation policies in Ireland. From our experience over a 15 year period, motivation is critically important in order to overcome the challenges and to take on the extra effort to move beyond the traditional research process towards any or all of: actively informing, influencing, underpinning and co-producing policy. Engagement is not about communicating research findings, but critically also about listening to the policy practitioners needs, and developing a clear understanding of the policy making process, which is significantly different from the research process. Building trust with policy practitioners can take a lot of time and effort, but is hugely important. This includes developing personal relations respecting their role, their position, and when conversations are confidential in nature (especially when this not explicitly stated). Based on this experience, coupled with the examples provided, our approach can be summarised in a seven step plan that other research teams may find useful, in particular those who wish to bridge between the research and policy eco-systems: 1. Undertake scientifically robust research, submit it for peer review, publish it in scientific journals and make methods and results openly and publicly available. 2. Frame research questions that respond to specific policy needs, and then submit the results and insights to policy practitioners to inform policy 3. Translate research results into policy insights—including through the use of ‘policy briefs’ 4. Improve communications of research findings through the development of infographics 5. Engage actively with policy practitioners and policy makers—this is critical to move beyond informing and towards influencing policy, mindful of the different roles and responsibilities of each. 6. Co-produce policy—challenging but can be very successful. 7. Build absorptive capacity in the policy system—the focus here is on equipping the policy makers to understand the strengths and limitations of the approaches used, and improved interpretation of the scenario results generated. Thanks to co-authors Paul Deane and Fionn Rogan, and to MaREI, Science Foundation Ireland, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Ireland, Sustainable Energy Authority of Ireland (SEAI), Minister Eamon Ryan, International Energy Agency (IEA), IEA-ETSAP | Energy Technology Systems Analysis Program

68% of Europeans believe scientists should intervene in political debates to ensure decisions are evidence-based (Eurobarometer 557). Yet, too often, the bridge between research results and policymaking remains underused. The European Research Executive Agency (REA) Agency has published a kit for EU-funded projects on how to share scientific evidence with policymakers. Its logic is simple but powerful: if research is publicly funded, it should not only advance knowledge but also inform policy choices. What this means The document outlines three principles for achieving policy impact: • Understand the policy context – track priorities, identify the right timing, and make results relevant. • Join forces with stakeholders – academics, industry, civil society, and other EU projects. • Plan for impact from the start – define audiences, key messages, and the right channels. It also lists the most effective formats to reach policymakers: policy briefs, consultations, workshops, and direct reporting. Interestingly, it stresses that researchers’ own social media accounts can also play a role in authenticity and engagement. Why this is interesting and for whom • For researchers: the kit provides 10 concrete steps and links to EU tools such as CORDIS, Horizon Dashboard, and the Horizon Results Platform, turning evidence into actionable insights. • For policymakers: it offers a structured way to receive scientific input in real time, aligned with the EU policy cycle. • For citizens: it strengthens the expectation that public policies are backed by evidence, not just political negotiation. The message is clear: EU-funded research is not complete until its results have reached the people shaping Europe’s future laws and strategies.

Yesterday’s announcement of New Zealand’s new national IP rules is one of the most significant shifts in our research system in years. Researchers will have the first right to commercialise inventions arising from projects funded through the Science, Innovation and Technology portfolio. It is being sold as a cleaner, fairer, more empowering framework for turning ideas into impact. But there is real value in reading the actual policy alongside the press release. The tone of the announcement suggests a simple, sector-wide reset. The policy itself is narrower, more conditional, and considerably more complex. The policy applies only to a subset of publicly funded research, introduces multiple commercialisation pathways, and hinges on project classifications that will require judgment calls from the Minister or a delegate. The Government said it had drawn inspiration from international examples such as the University of Waterloo’s Policy 73. So - many people expected a clean “Waterloo-style” creator-ownership model. The new framework moves in that direction, but with more administrative layers, more exceptions, and more points at which institutions retain control. I'm keen to foster discussion on whether the policy is likely to achieve the outcomes that researchers, universities, investors and government hope for. Alongside that: 🔹What challenges do you see in implementation, and how can we plan and manage these? 🔹What else do we now need to strengthen around the policy? For example: Capability development? Clearer guidelines? More support for very early-stage founders? New workload models/career-paths for researcher-entrepreneurs? A policy can set direction, but the surrounding ecosystem determines whether impact follows. If we want this shift to work, we will all need to engage with what the policy actually says, not just the hype. Keen to hear views from the various perspectives this touches: researchers, commercialisation teams, investors and policymakers. #IntellectualProperty #ResearchCommercialisation #SciencePolicy #InnovationNZ #TechTransfer #Universities 👉 Press release: https://lnkd.in/gwVSR73c 👉 Policy detail: https://lnkd.in/gxiWShdV

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 negotiations on a global plastics treaty (INC 5.2) resume in Geneva in early August. Our International Science Council Expert Group on Plastic Pollution, comprised of 16 experts from around the world, co-authored a short set of science-based priorities for the upcoming negotiations. Our paper in Nature Sustainability outlines the following four key elements for an effective #treaty and related provisions in the Chair’s negotiating text for further scientific input: 1️⃣ A global target that limits primary plastic production to sustainable levels that is grounded in science and regularly reviewed. 2️⃣ Science-based criteria and phase-out timelines for harmful chemicals and problematic plastic products. 3️⃣ A framework for robust monitoring and effectiveness evaluation, built on standardized protocols and open-access data. 4️⃣ A strong science–policy–society interface that is independent, interdisciplinary, inclusive, and policy-relevant. We call on Member States to include binding provisions that address currently unsustainable levels of plastic production and related harmful impacts, such as from chemical substances, and to integrate diverse knowledge systems—including Indigenous and local expertise—into the treaty's design, development, and implementation. This is a crucial moment for taking a stand against ever-increasing levels of global plastic pollution and its harms to people, wildlife, and our environment. Let’s make it count. 🔗 https://lnkd.in/gJ4psNQt #PlasticsTreaty #SciencePolicy #Sustainability #PlasticPollution #EnvironmentalHealth #INC5 #GlobalGovernance #Plastics #PolicyForChange

How can the United States advance alternative proteins in service of climate, food security, and economic resilience? 🪴 In a new article in the Journal of Science Policy & Governance (JSPG), my colleagues Erin Rees Clayton and Curt Chaffin recommend practical steps we can take now: 1️⃣ Adopt whole-of-government policies that elevate the role of food biomanufacturing within national security and advanced manufacturing initiatives. 2️⃣ Map crop biomass and food biomanufacturing capacity. 3️⃣ Fund planning grants to food biomanufacturing partnerships through a new interagency program. 4️⃣ Distribute regional innovation grants to public-private partnerships between academia and the food industry. 5️⃣ Establish an advisory board to facilitate coordination across regional bioeconomy hubs. Shoutout to Erin and Curt for offering a clear, compelling path forward—and for your tireless work to put good food on solid policy footing. 👏 https://lnkd.in/eMAaNPFX #AlternativeProteins #SciencePolicy #Biomanufacturing #ClimateSolutions #PublicInvestment #FutureOfFood

I’ve just had a first pass through the newly released report on prioritisation in New Zealand’s science, innovation and technology system. It marks a significant shift in strategic direction, and there is a lot for the sector to absorb. A few early reflections... It is encouraging to see a stronger mission-led framing, a clearer focus on advanced technologies, recognition of commercialisation and tech transfer as critical translation mechanisms, and an explicit acknowledgement that investigator-led research must remain part of the system. That matters, because game-changing innovation does not come from translation alone — it depends on a healthy pipeline from blue-skies and fundamental research through to application and scale-up. It also depends on creating space for the full range of pathways through which research delivers value, including commercialisation, informing policy, improving practice, engaging communities and the public, and advancing kaupapa Māori - all of which can create wider economic, social and environmental impact. The key now will be implementation: getting the mission structure and theory of change right, being clear about where NZIAT adds value within the wider system, and backing the commercialisation and tech transfer capability needed to help turn strong research into real-world impact. In particular, it will be important that NZIAT is designed to complement and connect into existing commercialisation capability, rather than inadvertently duplicating parts of the system that are already working well. More broadly, if New Zealand wants the kinds of outcomes this report is aiming for, we will need to back the whole system more strongly — from discovery through to commercialisation and scale-up — rather than treat this as a zero-sum exercise at roughly current funding levels. https://lnkd.in/ebMNDGJb #SciencePolicy #Innovation #ResearchCommercialisation #TechTransfer #ResearchImpact #DeepTech #NZScience

Just read this excellent new paper by Guy Pe'er and colleagues on the role of science and scientists in EU environmental policymaking, focusing on the Nature Restoration Regulation (NRR) and the Sustainable Use Regulation (SUR). As someone active at the science-policy interface of the EU #GreenDeal, it resonates strongly. The paper dissects how misinformation and short-term political pressures derailed the SUR, while sustained scientific engagement helped secure the NRR. It provides a sharp analysis of claims used against these regulations — on food security, yields, jobs, and energy — and contrasts them with robust scientific evidence. What stands out is the authors’ call for scientists to be proactive, credible, and collaborative in the public arena, especially when evidence is distorted or ignored. The open letter by 6,000 scientists in support of the NRR shows that collective scientific voice can matter. This is more than a case study. It’s a reminder that evidence-based policy needs evidence-based politics, and scientists willing to speak up. (Of course, “evidence-based” doesn’t mean all scientists will always agree. But on many issues, like the urgency of biodiversity restoration or the risks of pesticide overuse, there is strong consensus that deserves more serious political attention. At the very least, democratic politics should take better stock of the best available science.) Highly recommended reading for anyone working on sustainability, #foodsystems, or environmental governance. https://lnkd.in/eB_BeYxs

🔍 #TeachMeTuesday | Bridging the Science–Policy Gap—What May Require Change The European Commission’s just-published its final report on Bridging the Gap Between Science & Policy - https://lnkd.in/eavm9NYy - a deep look at how to fix the chronic dysfunctions in science-for-policy (S4P) systems. The report highlights a growing mismatch between research incentives and policy needs. Some takeaways that deserve attention: 📉 Researchers are not rewarded for engaging in policy work. In some systems, it’s even seen as a career risk. 🔄 Science advice is often delivered with no clear delivery paths, disconnected from the rhythms of policy. ❌ Most countries still rely on fragmented, ad hoc, and linear models of evidence transfer. ⚠️ AI produced content, a general paper overload, and low-quality journals - but also uncertain science funding sources with conflicts of interest at stake - complicate the integrity of the evidence base itself. The report proposes various solutions (all in the report), but, in my humble experience, one is key: Reward structures and academic excellence metrics -such as publication number or citations - by far - are widely disconnected from any measure of real-world economic or social impact; and the situation has not much improved over the last two to three decades. 📘 Some obvious links to - Upcoming exciting work of of TUM TransforM https://lnkd.in/eHzEjKsQ Hanna Hottenrott Sebastian Pfotenhauer Urs Gasser Thomas F. Hofmann 👉 WIPO work on Tech Transfer https://lnkd.in/eWWVn6Nb and earlier WIPO work “Harnessing Public Research for Innovation in the 21st Century”, Cambridge University Press: 👉 https://lnkd.in/gbnd4WJ8 👏 Hats off to lead editor Ilkka Tuomi and contributors Alessandro Allegra, Eva-Maria Szavuj, Annamaria Zonno, René von Schomberg, Kathryn Oliver. #SciencePolicy #S4P #PolicyImpact #Foresight #TrustInScience