Science advice systems are slow in a crisis: How science advisers should behave during the post-pandemic period, as explained by Mark Ferguson

Science advice systems are slow in a crisis because they aren’t ready for it. The US National Research Council, which conducts studies for the National Academies, had seen a gradual drop in requests for its signature reports because policymakers couldn’t wait the 18 months they typically took to produce. During the pandemic, the council fast-tracked some reports in just a few weeks. The academy plans to establish a standing capacity to work at this pace.

Zuckerman would arrive, say his piece, and smoothly exit, and there would be no sign of him once the controversy was over, according to legend. Aside from the lack of transparency, “that kind of summarizes how science advice should work”, says Mark Ferguson, who was chief science adviser to the government of Ireland from 2012 to 2022 and has since retired.

Aside from an understanding of science, a core attribute for science advisers is a good grasp of: how governments and their departments work; the goals and deadlines of policymakers; and how evidence can be appropriately added to the mix. That experience can be gained, for example, through fellowships or internships in government agencies. In the United States, the American Association for the Advancement of Science runs one well-known fellowship in Washington DC. There are many more.

The lack of high-level expert advice to inform the government at the grassroots level is exposed by COV-19, in the same way the United Kingdom has a scientific advisory group for emergencies. He says it is shocking that the United States has a colossus of scientific research.

In the United Kingdom, the Independent SAGE was one of the most prominent examples. The group was started in response to concerns about transparency that were raised by former GCSA David King, who was the leader of the group. SAGE didn’t point out when government policies weren’t consistent with scientific evidence and some scientists criticized them for that.

During the Pandemic, the pop-up shadow team of experts called OCTA Research became a leading source of science advice. The group had a lot of expertise, including physicians, economists, and a media specialist, according to Benjamin Vallejo Jr, an environmental scientist at the University of the Philippines Diliman. It also communicated to politicians “in a way that wouldn’t threaten their public credibility”, he says.

In future, Pillay and Pielke agree, science advice needs a mechanism to incorporate a wider diversity of expertise. Pielke says that if shadow voices become significant or influential, you should invite them into the room. More than 60% of survey respondents said that science advice fails to incorporate a diversity of people or viewpoints.

Another requirement is a repertoire of people skills: the ability to communicate complex ideas in succinct, everyday language; the capacity to build trusting relationships, so that politicians have faith in the information they receive and that their confidences will not be breached; being able to respectfully understand others’ views and priorities, however different. “Only in this way can you hope to convey the evidence to them in a way that helps them understand and appreciate it,” says Mark Ferguson, who was Ireland’s chief science adviser between 2012 and 2022.

A growing number of institutions worldwide offer training to both scientists and knowledge brokers. One is the International Institute for Science Diplomacy and Sustainability in Kuala Lumpur, which was founded last year by Zakri Abdul Hamid, a former science adviser to Malaysia’s prime minister. Preparing people for the United Nations climate meetings is what the institute prepares them for.

INGSA has a training program, but wants more, says the chief scientist of Québec. Research funders and employers need to incentivize researchers to do science-advice training and work. Some 60% of survey respondents said that funders’ failure to do so was an impediment to science advice.

Evidence is needed to inform these efforts. More than 1,900 initiatives were identified in a study to promote greater engagement between policymakers and researchers. I was appalled. Policy 18 is 691. Only a small percentage of them were evaluated to assess how well they worked.