Scientific Consensus in Policy Debates

Great seeing our paper out in Science! Stefano Carattini, John List and I argue that policy evaluation should be combined with a causal analysis of public support. Starting point of our argument is that policies that are generally considered socially desirable by the scientific community are not always popular among voters, because of a lack of understanding or biased beliefs. Congestion charges and carbon taxes are a case in point. However, recent empirical studies have shown that, in cases like these, experiencing the policy may lead voters to correct their beliefs and increase their support. A credible policy evaluation may further help voters to learn about the policy's effects. Our article describes how credible policy evaluation can be fruitfully combined with a causal analysis of public support. If it becomes more widely documented that opposition to sound policies dissipates when voters experience a policy, then policy-makers may be more inclined to experiment with such policies. Learning when and why public support does not increase after policy implementation would be very important as well. Indeed, this may even lead to a change in the consensus about the policy's desirability, for instance when scientists learn that they overlooked some negative aspects of the policy that voters strongly care about. Read the full article here: https://lnkd.in/ed2EAj9G Science Magazine

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.

Here's a valuable piece of strategic foresight. Scientific consensus on green growth is far less settled than assumed—policy debate almost certainly lies ahead. A new peer-reviewed study surveying more than 3,000 researchers across a wide scope of disciplines has revealed a disconnect between broad support for green growth and confidence in its underlying assumptions. While ~60% of researchers express general support for green growth, the surprise contradictory revelation is that endorsement weakens when researchers are asked to engage with its core propositions: (1) That economic growth is essential to human wellbeing (2) That GDP can be absolutely decoupled from material and energy use globally (3) That GDP can be absolutely decoupled from CO₂ emissions in line with the 2°C climate target Comparing median responses by field: Proposition (1): There is marginal agreement that economic growth is essential for wellbeing, but many researchers in social, ecological and agricultural sciences express doubt, suggesting they are open to alternative wellbeing strategies beyond growth. Propositions (2) and (3): Crucially, no field of research—including economics—believes that absolute decoupling of GDP from emissions or resource use is feasible. Interesting, no? Implications for business leaders: Decades-long policy consensus around green growth is not as robust as it appears, suggesting a coming shift toward alternative frameworks that prioritise wellbeing, resilience and sufficiency over GDP growth. For business, this signals a need to: (a) Invest in scenario planning that includes post-growth wellbeing policy trajectories (b) Pilot business models not predicated on continual growth, but on right sizing with respect to social needs and environmental boundaries As the science-policy interface evolves, businesses incorporating these insights into strategy will be better positioned to create future forms of value.   Link to Journal Article: https://lnkd.in/eRDqaN7A Authors: Manuel Suter Noel Strahm, Till Bundeli, Kaja Kaessner, Viktoria Cologna, Oreskes Naomi, and Sebastian Berger.   Photo by Damian Siodłak on Unsplash #Sustainability #GreenGrowth #PostGrowth #WellbeingEconomy #CorporateStrategy

What if the Wizard and the Prophet were joined by the Scientist? Most debates about the future miss this third voice. And it’s the one we need most. The world is under pressure. Climate change. Food security. Energy transitions. Water stress. Emerging bio-risks. Policymakers, activists, and technologists are all proposing answers. But they’re often trapped in two extremes. On one end: 🔮 The Prophet. Believes we must reduce. Less consumption. Smaller systems. Degrowth. He sees nature as fragile. His warnings shape environmental policy and public fear. On the other: 🧙 The Wizard. Believes we must accelerate. Innovation. Efficiency. Scale. He sees technology as the solution. His mindset built modern agriculture, power grids, and global health systems. But we’re missing someone: 🧪 The Scientist. Doesn’t argue with ideology. Asks: What’s the evidence? What are the trade-offs? What actually works? Doesn’t sell simplicity or salvation. Builds reliable systems grounded in reality. Every serious issue today echoes this triangle: Organics vs. GMOs. Solar vs. nuclear. Net-zero by restriction vs. net-zero by redesign These are not just technical questions. They’re strategic worldview choices. The Prophet fears collapse. The Wizard fears stagnation. The Scientist fears dogma. Only one of them builds solutions that endure under scrutiny. If you're leading innovation, policy, or science communication - remember this: Facts alone don’t win arguments. But without them, the wrong arguments win. The Scientist’s role is not to inspire, but to anchor. The Wizard and the Prophet are loud. They shape narratives. But the Scientist shapes outcomes. In the age of misinformation and polarization, scientific reasoning is not optional - it's infrastructure. The real question isn’t “who’s right?” It’s: Are we making decisions based on evidence or emotion? The future depends on whether the Scientist gets a seat at the table. You’ve read this far - now go deeper. 🎧 Listen to the full conversation on Food is Fact 👉 https://lnkd.in/duXKKyrj

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

📢 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

🌍🔍 Bridging the Gap: Trust in Science for Policy 🌍🔍 In recent months, we’ve seen mounting challenges and attacks on science, with policymakers and scientists struggling to find the right responses. What can be done? We’re excited to share insights from our recent workshop with the International Science Council, the NSF and the EU Science, Research and Innovation. We have compiled the most important ideas in our report: "Trust in Science for Policy Nexus." 🔑 Key Takeaways: 🔹  Trust is not just a buzzword. It's foundational for credible policymaking and democratic legitimacy. 🔹  Despite narratives of a "crisis," trust in science remains high across most countries. Yet, we must address the pockets of skepticism with targeted actions. 🔹 Trust in Science for Policy is not just trust of citizens in science. It is a nexus between citizens, science and policymaking. If policymakers don't trust science or attack it, this has repercussions on the whole system. 🔹  Misinformation is a challenge, but not always how we think: it’s the combination of motivated reasoning, biased algorithms, and a growing partisan divide. 🔹 Science needs humility: While scientific evidence is critical, it’s not the only type of knowledge valuable for policymaking, engaging citizens is crucial. 🔹 Finally, it also works the other way round: Policies that rely on better evidence can increase trust in the democratic system, creating a virtouous cycle! What now? 🎯 Our report outlines a framework for improving trust in science for policy, focusing on bridging gaps and ensuring scientific integrity in public institutions. Read the full report here: https://lnkd.in/eFcdJqCz 📚 #ScienceForPolicy #TrustInScience #EvidenceBasedPolicy #Policymaking #ResearchImpact A special thanks to all the amazing contributors: Alessandro Allegra Dominique Brossard Laura Cassio Viktoria Cologna Jim Dratwa Tessa Dunlop Mary Feeney Agnieszka Gadzina-Kolodziejska Peter Gluckman Ângela Guimarães Pereira Yuko Harayama Koen Jonkers Sarah Kups David Mair Vanessa McBride Ashley Rose Mehlenbacher Hugo Mercier Michael Bang Petersen Nikolaus Possanner Anna Paola Quaglia Jon Roozenbeek Paulo Rosa Vivi Stanvrou Johannes Starkbaum Barbara Szelewa-Kropiwnicka Mateusz Tokarski Elisa Vecchione Dara Wald

At GreenStitch.io, we often look to history for lessons on how scientific understanding and policy decisions can work together to tackle environmental challenges. A perfect example of this is the #Montreal #Protocol, which addressed the dire threat of ozone depletion caused by chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). In the 1970s, scientists like Mario Molina, Sherwood Rowland, and Paul Crutzen discovered the link between CFCs and ozone damage. Susan Solomon’s work on the chemical reactions behind the ozone hole, and Joe Farman’s measurements, were key in pushing global leaders to act. Despite climate deniers and misinformation campaigns, arguably led by the fossil fuel lobby, the scientific consensus drove political leaders to act. The Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987, with the support of Ronald Reagan (US President at the time) and Margaret Thatcher (UK Prime Minister and a chemist herself), who understood the urgency. It is considered one of the most successful international agreements to date, phasing out ~100% of ozone-depleting substances. The Montreal Protocol is a testament to what can be achieved with a unified purpose. In today’s fight against climate change, we can learn from this historic achievement. Consensus and decisive action are the tools we need to overcome environmental crises. #Sustainability #MontrealProtocol #OzoneLayer #ClimateChange #PolicyAction #Science #GreenStitch