Dataset Information

A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Sutherland WJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3302883 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda.

Sutherland William J WJ Bellingan Laura L Bellingham Jim R JR Blackstock Jason J JJ Bloomfield Robert M RM Bravo Michael M Cadman Victoria M VM Cleevely David D DD Clements Andy A Cohen Anthony S AS Cope David R DR Daemmrich Arthur A AA Devecchi Cristina C Anadon Laura Diaz LD Denegri Simon S Doubleday Robert R Dusic Nicholas R NR Evans Robert J RJ Feng Wai Y WY Godfray H Charles J HC Harris Paul P Hartley Sue E SE Hester Alison J AJ Holmes John J Hughes Alan A Hulme Mike M Irwin Colin C Jennings Richard C RC Kass Gary S GS Littlejohns Peter P Marteau Theresa M TM McKee Glenn G Millstone Erik P EP Nuttall William J WJ Owens Susan S Parker Miles M MM Pearson Sarah S Petts Judith J Ploszek Richard R Pullin Andrew S AS Reid Graeme G Richards Keith S KS Robinson John G JG Shaxson Louise L Sierra Leonor L Smith Beck G BG Spiegelhalter David J DJ Stilgoe Jack J Stirling Andy A Tyler Christopher P CP Winickoff David E DE Zimmern Ron L RL

PloS one 20120309 3

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 fiel ...[more]

PMID: 22427809

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPersons with albinism face challenges to their wellbeing, safety, and security, ranging from vision impairment and skin cancer to stigma and discrimination. In some regions, they also face human rights atrocities including mutilation and murder. Research on human rights and albinism is a relatively new field that has gained momentum since the United Nations appointment of an Independent Expert on the enjoyment of human rights by persons with albinism. In this paper, we present the results of a mixed methods study undertaken to identify priorities for research, advocacy, and policy on albinism and human rights.MethodsThe first component was a synthesis of peer-reviewed and grey literatures at the nexus of albinism, spiritual/cultural beliefs and practices, and human rights. We then conducted a priority-setting survey, informed by Delphi methods, on extant knowledge-practice gaps and research, advocacy, and policy priorities. Inclusion criteria included demonstrated expertise in the field (e.g., peer-reviewed publications, funded research), membership on national or international associations, or advocacy (civil society organizations) of more than 2 years in albinism and human rights. Thereafter, we gathered leading researchers, policy-makers, and civil society stakeholders for a Roundtable to gain consensus on these priorities.ResultsAccess to skin and vision care, and education were not deemed high priority for research, likely because the evidence supporting the need for these is well established. However, they were priorities for advocacy and policy: what is needed is mobilization of this evidence through advocacy and implementation of such services (policy). Other social determinants of health (rurality, poverty, and gender equality) are present as subtext in the findings, more so than priorities for research, advocacy, or policy, despite their preponderance in the lives of persons with albinism. Research was prioritized on stigma and discrimination; advocacy; and witchcraft, but with some differentiation between Global North and Global South priorities. Priorities for research, advocacy, and policy vary in keeping with the explanatory frameworks at play, including how harmful practices and witchcraft are viewed.ConclusionsThe lived experience of albinism is profoundly shaped by the social determinants of health (SDOH). Threats to the security and well-being of persons with albinism should be viewed through a human rights lens that encompasses the explanatory frameworks at play.

Project description:Improving laboratory animal science and welfare requires both new scientific research and insights from research in the humanities and social sciences. Whilst scientific research provides evidence to replace, reduce and refine procedures involving laboratory animals (the '3Rs'), work in the humanities and social sciences can help understand the social, economic and cultural processes that enhance or impede humane ways of knowing and working with laboratory animals. However, communication across these disciplinary perspectives is currently limited, and they design research programmes, generate results, engage users, and seek to influence policy in different ways. To facilitate dialogue and future research at this interface, we convened an interdisciplinary group of 45 life scientists, social scientists, humanities scholars, non-governmental organisations and policy-makers to generate a collaborative research agenda. This drew on methods employed by other agenda-setting exercises in science policy, using a collaborative and deliberative approach for the identification of research priorities. Participants were recruited from across the community, invited to submit research questions and vote on their priorities. They then met at an interactive workshop in the UK, discussed all 136 questions submitted, and collectively defined the 30 most important issues for the group. The output is a collaborative future agenda for research in the humanities and social sciences on laboratory animal science and welfare. The questions indicate a demand for new research in the humanities and social sciences to inform emerging discussions and priorities on the governance and practice of laboratory animal research, including on issues around: international harmonisation, openness and public engagement, 'cultures of care', harm-benefit analysis and the future of the 3Rs. The process outlined below underlines the value of interdisciplinary exchange for improving communication across different research cultures and identifies ways of enhancing the effectiveness of future research at the interface between the humanities, social sciences, science and science policy.

Dataset Information

A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda.

Publications

A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets