Robert Doubleday

A Collaboratively-Derived Science-Policy Research Agenda

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.

Risk, public engagement and reflexivity: Alternative framings of the public dimensions of nanotechnology

Abstract Nanotechnology research receives large sums of public funds because of the technological innovations it promises, not least in the area of medical technologies. Exploration of social aspects of nanotechnology is now encouraged by science policy in attempts to foreclose possible future public controversy. This article explores how the social aspects of nanotechnology have emerged as a public issue; how public engagement projects are framed in terms of nanotechnology; and the rationale for social science research on nanotechnology. The article argues that pubic policy processes are increasingly focusing narrowly on the environmental and health risks of nanoparticles and that public engagement projects are limited by adopting nanotechnology as a focus of deliberation. The article concludes by rejecting grand claims for social science as a means of making science and technology more reflexive, but suggests more modest ways that research can support a widening of discussion of the public dimensions of nanotechnology.

Identifying the science and technology dimensions of emerging public policy issues through horizon scanning.

Public policy requires public support, which in turn implies a need to enable the public not just to understand policy but also to be engaged in its development. Where complex science and technology issues are involved in policy making, this takes time, so it is important to identify emerging issues of this type and prepare engagement plans. In our horizon scanning exercise, we used a modified Delphi technique [1]. A wide group of people with interests in the science and policy interface (drawn from policy makers, policy adviser, practitioners, the private sector and academics) elicited a long list of emergent policy issues in which science and technology would feature strongly and which would also necessitate public engagement as policies are developed. This was then refined to a short list of top priorities for policy makers. Thirty issues were identified within broad areas of business and technology; energy and environment; government, politics and education; health, healthcare, population and aging; information, communication, infrastructure and transport; and public safety and national security.

Science policy: Beyond the great and good.

Chief scientific advisers need better support and networks to ensure that science advice to governments is robust

100 Questions: identifying research priorities for poverty prevention and reduction

Reducing poverty is important for those affected, for society and the economy. Poverty remains entrenched in the UK, despite considerable research efforts to understand its causes and possible solutions. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation, with the Centre for Science and Policy at the University of Cambridge, ran a democratic, transparent, consensual exercise involving 45 participants from government, non-governmental organisations, academia and research to identify 100 important research questions that, if answered, would help to reduce or prevent poverty. The list includes questions across a number of important themes, including attitudes, education, family, employment, heath, wellbeing, inclusion, markets, housing, taxes, inequality and power.

Policy windows for the environment: Tips for improving the uptake of scientific knowledge

(1) EU’s Seventh Framework Programme within the EU Biodiversity Observation Network (No. 308454) (2) Post-doctoral fellowship from Fondation Wiener Anspach, Belgium and the Scriven fellowship, (3) Cambridge Earth System Science NERC DTP [NE/L002507/1], (4) Austrian Science Fund (FWF), (5) Arcadia.

Point of View: A transatlantic perspective on 20 emerging issues in biological engineering

Advances in biological engineering are likely to have substantial impacts on global society. To explore these potential impacts we ran a horizon scanning exercise to capture a range of perspectives on the opportunities and risks presented by biological engineering. We first identified 70 potential issues, and then used an iterative process to prioritise 20 issues that we considered to be emerging, to have potential global impact, and to be relatively unknown outside the field of biological engineering. The issues identified may be of interest to researchers, businesses and policy makers in sectors such as health, energy, agriculture and the environment.