Keeping science’s seat at the decision-making table: Mechanisms to motivate policy-makers to keep using scientific information in the age of disinformation
Policy-makers are confronted with complex problems that require evaluating multiple streams of evidence and weighing competing interests to develop and implement solutions. However, the policy interventions available to resolve these problems have different levels of supporting scientific evidence....
Main Authors: | , |
---|---|
Format: | Article |
Language: | English |
Published: |
Canadian Science Publishing
2017-12-01
|
Series: | FACETS |
Subjects: | |
Online Access: | http://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/10.1139/facets-2017-0087 |
id |
doaj-a53b0e5216434c9085cde07a12b0b5ca |
---|---|
record_format |
Article |
spelling |
doaj-a53b0e5216434c9085cde07a12b0b5ca2020-11-25T02:14:53ZengCanadian Science PublishingFACETS2371-16712371-16712017-12-0121045106410.1139/facets-2017-0087Keeping science’s seat at the decision-making table: Mechanisms to motivate policy-makers to keep using scientific information in the age of disinformationJustin N. Marleau0Kimberly D. Girling1Mitacs Canadian Science Policy Fellowship, Mitacs Inc., 5145 Ave Decelles, Montreal, QC H3T 2B2, Canada; Department of Biology, McGill University, 1205 Docteur Penfield, Montreal, QC H3A 1B1, Canada *Authors share first author status and their views or opinions expressed within this paper belong solely to the authors and do not represent those of Mitacs.Mitacs Canadian Science Policy Fellowship, Mitacs Inc., 5145 Ave Decelles, Montreal, QC H3T 2B2, Canada *Authors share first author status and their views or opinions expressed within this paper belong solely to the authors and do not represent those of Mitacs.Policy-makers are confronted with complex problems that require evaluating multiple streams of evidence and weighing competing interests to develop and implement solutions. However, the policy interventions available to resolve these problems have different levels of supporting scientific evidence. Decision-makers, who are not necessarily scientifically trained, may favour policies with limited scientific backing to obtain public support. We illustrate these tensions with two case studies where the scientific consensus went up against the governing parties’ chosen policy. What mechanisms exist to keep the weight of scientific evidence at the forefront of decision-making at the highest levels of government? In this paper, we propose that Canada create “Departmental Chief Science Advisors” (DCSAs), based on a program in the UK, to help complement and extend the reach of the newly created Chief Science Advisor position. DCSAs would provide advice to ministers and senior civil servants, critically evaluate scientific work in their host department, and provide public outreach for the department’s science. We show how the DCSAs could be integrated into their departments and illustrate their potential benefits to the policy making process and the scientific community.http://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/10.1139/facets-2017-0087chief science advisorscience policyopen scienceopen governmentdepartmental chief science advisorevidence-based policy |
collection |
DOAJ |
language |
English |
format |
Article |
sources |
DOAJ |
author |
Justin N. Marleau Kimberly D. Girling |
spellingShingle |
Justin N. Marleau Kimberly D. Girling Keeping science’s seat at the decision-making table: Mechanisms to motivate policy-makers to keep using scientific information in the age of disinformation FACETS chief science advisor science policy open science open government departmental chief science advisor evidence-based policy |
author_facet |
Justin N. Marleau Kimberly D. Girling |
author_sort |
Justin N. Marleau |
title |
Keeping science’s seat at the decision-making table: Mechanisms to motivate policy-makers to keep using scientific information in the age of disinformation |
title_short |
Keeping science’s seat at the decision-making table: Mechanisms to motivate policy-makers to keep using scientific information in the age of disinformation |
title_full |
Keeping science’s seat at the decision-making table: Mechanisms to motivate policy-makers to keep using scientific information in the age of disinformation |
title_fullStr |
Keeping science’s seat at the decision-making table: Mechanisms to motivate policy-makers to keep using scientific information in the age of disinformation |
title_full_unstemmed |
Keeping science’s seat at the decision-making table: Mechanisms to motivate policy-makers to keep using scientific information in the age of disinformation |
title_sort |
keeping science’s seat at the decision-making table: mechanisms to motivate policy-makers to keep using scientific information in the age of disinformation |
publisher |
Canadian Science Publishing |
series |
FACETS |
issn |
2371-1671 2371-1671 |
publishDate |
2017-12-01 |
description |
Policy-makers are confronted with complex problems that require evaluating multiple streams of evidence and weighing competing interests to develop and implement solutions. However, the policy interventions available to resolve these problems have different levels of supporting scientific evidence. Decision-makers, who are not necessarily scientifically trained, may favour policies with limited scientific backing to obtain public support. We illustrate these tensions with two case studies where the scientific consensus went up against the governing parties’ chosen policy. What mechanisms exist to keep the weight of scientific evidence at the forefront of decision-making at the highest levels of government? In this paper, we propose that Canada create “Departmental Chief Science Advisors” (DCSAs), based on a program in the UK, to help complement and extend the reach of the newly created Chief Science Advisor position. DCSAs would provide advice to ministers and senior civil servants, critically evaluate scientific work in their host department, and provide public outreach for the department’s science. We show how the DCSAs could be integrated into their departments and illustrate their potential benefits to the policy making process and the scientific community. |
topic |
chief science advisor science policy open science open government departmental chief science advisor evidence-based policy |
url |
http://www.facetsjournal.com/doi/10.1139/facets-2017-0087 |
work_keys_str_mv |
AT justinnmarleau keepingsciencesseatatthedecisionmakingtablemechanismstomotivatepolicymakerstokeepusingscientificinformationintheageofdisinformation AT kimberlydgirling keepingsciencesseatatthedecisionmakingtablemechanismstomotivatepolicymakerstokeepusingscientificinformationintheageofdisinformation |
_version_ |
1724899136281509888 |