Dataset Information

Researchers must be aware of their roles at the interface of ecosystem services science and policy.

ABSTRACT: Scientists working on ecosystem service (ES) science are engaged in a mission-driven discipline. They can contribute to science-policy interfaces where knowledge is co-produced and used. How scientists engage with the governance arena to mobilise their knowledge remains a matter of personal choice, influenced by individual values. ES science cannot be considered neutral and a discussion of the values that shape it forms an important part of the sustainability dialogue. We propose a simple decision tree to help ES scientists identify their role and the purpose of the knowledge they produce. We characterise six idealised scientific postures spanning possible roles at the science-policy interface (pure scientist, science arbiter-guarantor, issue advocate-guardian, officer, honest broker and stealth issue advocate) and illustrate them with feedbacks from interviews. We encourage ES scientists to conduct a reflexive exploration of their attitudes regarding knowledge production and use, with the intention of progressing toward a higher recognition of the political and ethical importance of ES assessments.

SUBMITTER: Crouzat E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5709268 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Researchers must be aware of their roles at the interface of ecosystem services science and policy.

Crouzat Emilie E Arpin Isabelle I Brunet Lucas L Colloff Matthew J MJ Turkelboom Francis F Lavorel Sandra S

Ambio 20170914 1

Scientists working on ecosystem service (ES) science are engaged in a mission-driven discipline. They can contribute to science-policy interfaces where knowledge is co-produced and used. How scientists engage with the governance arena to mobilise their knowledge remains a matter of personal choice, influenced by individual values. ES science cannot be considered neutral and a discussion of the values that shape it forms an important part of the sustainability dialogue. We propose a simple decisi ...[more]

PMID: 28913614

Similar Datasets

Project description:Evaluating environmental policies requires estimating the impacts of policy-induced changes on ecological and human systems. Drawing connections between biophysical and economic models is complex due to the multidisciplinary nature of the task and the lack of data. Further, time and resource constraints typically limit our ability to conduct original valuation studies to fit the specific policy context. Policy analysts thus rely on methods to transfer and adapt value estimates from existing studies. To conduct end-to-end policy analysis, assumptions are needed to make the linkages between ecological and valuation models as well as to conduct benefit transfers. This paper discusses an approach that can potentially help a policy analyst to minimize assumptions and identify appropriate caveats. This approach focuses on what human beings truly value from ecosystems, or, in other words, metrics of Final Ecosystem Goods and Services (FEGS). our hypothesis is that the FEGS approach will help support policy analysis by drawing important linkages between ecological and economic models as well as by designing valuation studies that will be more conducive to benefit transfers. To examine this hypothesis, we use a selected set of existing valuation studies as case study examples, and we examine how the methods used in these studies compare with the FEGS approach. We find that the studies are not always consistent with the FEGS approach, in many cases due to data limitations. We illustrate ways in which using FEGS metrics can provide economists with a useful starting point for considering how the commodity can be defined and specified in the valuation study. Even if data limitations exist, a FEGS approach can help in determining whether the context in which the original study was conducted matches with the policy context. This can also help in determining the extent of uncertainty associated with the analysis and in providing transparent documentation that can be informative for policy makers.

Project description:The Lisbon Strategy was adopted by the Heads of State and Government of the European Union (EU) in 2000. By moving science into a central position for the development of a European knowledge-based economy and society, its adoption at political level seems to have been a powerful catalyst for the increased involvement of scientists in science policy in the EU. Recognising the need for scientists to act collectively in order to contribute to shape the future of science policy in Europe, a pioneering group of European science organisations leaders and representatives, as well as other scientists, initiated a European, interdisciplinary, inclusive movement leading to the creation of the European Research Council (ERC) to support basic research of the highest quality. Having scientists' campaign for the funding of bottom-up research by the EU Framework Programmes exclusively on scientific grounds, and for an ERC, was a unique event in the recent history of European science policy. For the first time, the scientific community acted collectively and across disciplinary or national boundaries as a political actor for the sake of a better science policy for Europe. As is often the case when first-hand experience is gained through the creation of a new organization, novel forms of collaboration arise. The European biomedical community has recently proposed the creation of a strategic action plan for health research (the European Council of Health Research; EuCHR), provisionally translated at present into a Scientific Panel for Health (SPH) research in Horizon 2020, the EU's research-funding programme for the period 2014-2020. The creation of such Scientific Panel should be viewed as an important contribution by the biomedical community as a major political agreement has been reached on the need for a comprehensive and long-term scientific strategy to accelerate research and facilitate innovation at EU level. It is our belief that describing and analyzing the process leading to the creation of the ERC and SPH (2002-2014) should be widely shared with the research community in general, as this may contribute to the understanding of the evolving relations between scientists and science-policy making.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:The optimisation of health science communication (HSC) between researchers and the public is crucial. In the last decade, the rise of the digital and social media ecosystem allowed for the disintermediation of HSC. Disintermediation refers to the public's direct access to information from researchers about health science-related topics through the digital and social media ecosystem, a process that would otherwise require a human mediator, such as a journalist. Therefore, the primary aim of this scoping review is to describe the nature and the extent of the literature regarding HSC strategies involving disintermediation used by researchers with the public in the digital and social media ecosystem. The secondary aim is to describe the HSC strategies used by researchers, and the communication channels associated with these strategies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS:We will conduct a scoping review based on the Joanna Briggs Institute's methodology and perform a systematic search of six bibliographical databases (CINAHL, EMBASE, IBSS, PubMed, Sociological Abstracts and Web of Science), four trial registries and relevant sources of grey literature. Relevant journals and reference lists of included records will be hand-searched. Data will be managed using the EndNote software and the Rayyan web application. Two review team members will perform independently the screening process as well as the full-text assessment of included records. Descriptive data will be synthesised in a tabular format. Data regarding the nature and the extent of the literature, the HSC strategies and the associated communication channels will be presented narratively. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:This review does not require institutional review board approval as we will use only collected and published data. Results will allow the mapping of the literature about HSC between researchers and the public in the digital and social media ecosystem, and will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Dataset Information

Researchers must be aware of their roles at the interface of ecosystem services science and policy.

Publications

Researchers must be aware of their roles at the interface of ecosystem services science and policy.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets