GeoLog

scipol

Marching for Science in Vienna

On 22 April, Earth Day and the day before the start of the EGU General Assembly, scientists and science enthusiasts across the globe will be marching to celebrate science and to call for the safeguarding of its future. While the main march is taking place in Washington D.C. in the US, there are hundreds of satellite marches happening around the world, including in Vienna.

Representatives of both the EGU and the AGU, including the EGU President Hans Thybo and the AGU Executive Director Christine McEntee, will be marching together in Vienna in a united display of support for open, responsible research and for a safe future for the geosciences.

EGU-AGU Meeting point for Vienna March for Science (click to enlarge).

We would like to invite you to march with us in Vienna. Please meet us on Saturday, April 22 at 12:45 at the Sigmund-Freud-Park: see the meeting point marked in the image. You can find more details about the route and the march on the March for Science Vienna website.

Why are you marching for science?

You can download this EGU sign to bring to the March to show why you are standing up for science (the AGU’s instagram is a great source of inspiration). You can also join in with our campaign on social media by posting photos of yourself with the sign and tagging them with the hashtags #ScienceMarch, #ScienceServes and #EGU17.

AGU have posters, and other resources, to download from their March for Science page, as well as tips on how to get ready for the march.

Also, if you plan to march in Vienna, Washington DC, or any of the other satellite marches taking place in cities across the world, don’t forget to let Nature and AGU know why you are supporting the march by taking their surveys.

We look forward to seeing you in Vienna and to championing science together.

Some of the EGU’s Executive Office on why they stand up for science (from L to R: Laura (Communications Officer), Bárbara (Media & Communications Manager) and Philippe (Executive Secretary). Click to enlarge.

GeoPolicy: Making a case for science at the United Nations

GeoPolicy: Making a case for science at the United Nations

This month’s GeoPolicy is a guest post by the International Council for Science (ICSU). Based in Paris, the organisation works at the science-policy interface on the international scale. Here, Heide Hackmann, Executive Director at ICSU, highlights key initiatives ensuring science is present within the United Nations (UN) and explains how ICSU and the scientific community can support these processes.

The past years were an extraordinary time for the UN, with key international agreements on disaster risk reduction, climate change, sustainable development and urbanization being concluded. The decisions taken in the last two years will shape global policy for decades. It was an exciting time for science, too – getting the Paris Agreement in place, for example, was after all a result of decades (centuries, actually) of research, and of science sounding the alarm on the effects of carbon emissions on the climate. Without the relentless work of the climate science community, the issue of climate change would never have received the political attention it needed, plunging humankind headlong into its dangerous consequences.

The UN policy cycle of the last two years started in 2015 with the Sustainable Development Goals and ended, in October 2016, with the New Urban Agenda, being agreed in Quito, Ecuador. Now is a good time to look back at some aspects of how and why science has been a part of the creation of these UN policy frameworks, and start a conversation about what its role could be in their implementation.

The idea that scientific progress should benefit society has been central to the mission of the International Council for Science (ICSU) since its foundation in 1931. Its membership consists of national scientific bodies (122 members, representing 142 countries), international scientific unions (31 members), as well as 22 associate members. Through its members the Council identifies major issues of importance to science and society and mobilizes scientists to address them. It facilitates interaction amongst scientists across all disciplines and from all countries and promotes the participation of all scientists—regardless of race, citizenship, language, political stance, or gender—in the international scientific endeavour.

A core part of the Council’s work relates to the provision of scientific input and advice to inform policy development. It has a long history in this arena, having for example in the 1950s catalyzed international climate research through its organization of the International Geophysical Year (IGY).  Following the IGY, ICSU encouraged the United Nations to include the climate change issue in policy development processes and in the 1970s convened key meetings that led to the creation of the World Climate Research Programme in 1980 and, eventually, to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. In 1992, ICSU was invited to coordinate the inputs of the international scientific community to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de Janeiro and, again in 2002, to the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) in Johannesburg.

 

There is no one model of how to make science heard at the UN

All processes at the science-policy interface are different: Sometimes the Council has a formal role representing the scientific community at the UN. In other processes it is just one of many organizations creating pathways for communities of scientists to be heard. In yet other cases, ICSU plays a coordinating role, contributing to the architecture of international science advisory mechanisms and developing the scientific infrastructure underpinning UN policy processes. So each time we decide to engage in a new process, we have a close look at who is doing what in the space, and what the unique contribution of an international science council could be. Here are a couple of examples of what we thought were useful contributions:

In the process leading to the agreement of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), the Council formally represented the international scientific community as part of the Major Group for Science and Technology (together with WFEO and ISSC), a stakeholder structure designed to provide civil society input into the intergovernmental negotiations. This typically involved coordinating written and oral inputs to the meetings of the UN working group involved in their creation to advocate for science-based decision- and policy-making.

The Council also published the only scientific review of the Sustainable Development Goals. Based on the work of more than 40 researchers from a range of fields across the natural and social sciences, it found that of the 169 targets beneath the 17 draft goals, just 29% are well defined and based on the latest scientific evidence, while 54% need more work and 17% are weak or non-essential. On its release, the report received widespread coverage in international media. Right now, the Council is working on finalizing a follow-up report that examines synergies and trade-offs between different goals, drawing attention to the need for mapping and characterising interactions between SDGs to avoid negative outcomes. Expect that report to be published in early 2017.

For the climate change process, the IPCC served as the obvious voice of science. However, as an intergovernmental body, its focus was not so much directed towards public outreach. This left a niche for another contribution by the Council to the UN negotiations. In the 18 months prior to the COP21 climate negotiations in Paris, December 2015, the Council operated the Road to Paris website, a stand-alone media product emerging from the scientific community. The site followed three major international policy processes that concluded in 2015: disaster risk reduction, sustainable development and climate change. Its content was designed to augment the existing media coverage of these processes from a scientific point of view. Just before COP21, a collection of the most read and most shared articles on the website was published in a magazine format. This involvement in the COP21 discussions culminated in the Council’s role at the conference itself, where it provided a focal point for scientists present to gather, network, discuss key scientific challenges and communicate to the media in the last days of the conference on the Paris Agreement.

At Habitat III, the UN’s conference on sustainable urbanization, we tried yet another approach. The stakeholder input for this process was organized in a much more bottom-up way, with no one organization being assigned formal representation of the science community. The input of the research community through what was called the “General Assembly of Partners” had a distinct impact on the outcome document. For example, in March of 2016, there was not a single mention of the word “health” in the draft of that document, yet by the time it was agreed in Quito, 25 mentions of “health” had appeared. Additionally, for Quito we teamed up with Future Earth and the University of Applied Sciences Potsdam to create a space called Habitat X Change. At the previous conferences, we had noticed that scientists were keen for an on-the-ground rallying point – for a physical space where scientists can meet, connect with one another and with stakeholders to exchange ideas, make the voice of science heard, and form new networks to work together in the future. Habitat X Change quickly became a natural focal point for scientists at the conference, providing a space for them to hold events, meet one another, showcase their research, or just have a coffee and talk. See our photos on Flickr to get an impression of how people at the conference filled it with life and meaning.

Overall, we found that there is a big interest in scientific input and opinion at these conferences. For example, at a spontaneously organized climate science press conference during the 2015 climate talks in Paris, more than 200 journalists crammed into the room, beleaguering the scientists with questions long after the conclusion of the press briefing. The voice of science is seen as more neutral and disinterested than those of the many activist groups jostling for attention around these processes.

 

The big frameworks are all in place – is science still needed now?

With the Paris Agreement in force, the world now has a legally binding agreement to limit dangerous climate change. The Sustainable Development Goals provide a roadmap to a more equitable, sustainable future. The New Urban Agenda tells us what the role of cities in all this will be. What then is the role for science in turning these political documents into realities on the ground?

One thing is to help deal with their complexity. Even before the SDGs were agreed, some started questioning them, saying that success in one goal might offset gains in others, if done the wrong way. Science can help make sense of these interactions and help policymakers avoid pitfalls. Making the New Urban Agenda a success requires efficient ways of linking knowledge production and policy-making, and closely linking the implementation of this Agenda with the SDGs. And the Paris Agreement prominently calls on the scientific community (represented by the IPCC) to identify pathways to limit global warming to 1.5° C.  There is a wealth of problems that need solutions from science in order to make these political agreements a success.

The scientific community also needs to help identify and fill critical knowledge gaps. Here, the Council’s research programmes are actively contributing to the implementation of the agreements. For example, the Integrated Research on Disaster Risk (IRDR) programme is helping to define minimum data standards for the indicators for the Sendai Agreement on disaster risk reduction. WCRP is bringing to the fore the remaining gaps in basic research on climate change. Future Earth is building scientific and stakeholder coalitions called Knowledge Action Networks around priority areas for these global agreements.

At the same time, the implementation phase of these frameworks poses challenges because it requires a cultural shift for science as it moves towards being a partner in co-creating the solutions needed by policymakers. It requires building long term frameworks to work at different scales, and importantly at the national level. This has implications for the kinds of organizations that are a central part of the Council’s core constituency: its broad base of national scientific academies. It also means engaging meaningfully with stakeholders to deliver the knowledge that is needed, and staying engaged during the implementation, not just the creation, of these frameworks.

Written by Heide Hackmann, Executive Director at the International Council for Science.

We are hiring: be our next Science Policy Officer!

We are hiring: be our next Science Policy Officer!

Do you have an interest in science policy and the geosciences? Then this post might be just right for you!

We are looking to hire a Science Policy Officer to continue developing the EGU’s policy programme, which is aimed at building bridges between geoscientists and European policymakers, engaging the EGU membership with public policy, and informing decision makers about the Earth, planetary and space sciences. The officer will be tasked with mapping out policy opportunities for the EGU, setting up links between EGU members and European decision makers, and developing training and networking events for scientists to engage with policy.

We are looking for a good team player with excellent interpersonal, organisational, and communication skills to fill this role. The successful applicant will have a postgraduate degree (e.g. MA, MSc), preferably in the geosciences or related scientific disciplines or in public policy. Candidates should also have experience in communicating with policymakers, knowledge of policymaking at the European level and an expert command of English. Non-European nationals are eligible to apply, provided they have some knowledge of the European decision-making system.

To get a feel for what the position involves why not read this post by the current post holder, Sarah Connors? Be sure to also check the GeoPolicy column of the blog for even more insight into the work.

The deadline for application is 15 November 2016. Further details about the position and how to apply can be found here.

Feel free to contact Dr Bárbara Ferreira, the Media and Communications Manager, at media@egu.eu or on +49-89-2180-6703 if you have any questions about the position.

GeoPolicy: Living in a post-factual society and why it’s more important than ever for scientists to engage

GeoPolicy: Living in a post-factual society and why it’s more important than ever for scientists to engage

Last week, the EGU Science Policy Fellow packed her bags and flew to Brussels. Now this wasn’t to sample some of the fine beers Belgium has to offer, but to attend the 2nd International Network on Government Science Advice (INGSA) Conference. This conference, co-organised by INGSA and the European Commission, aimed to discuss the major principles needed for effective science advice to governments, focusing predominantly on the European scale. This month’s GeoPolicy post looks at the main themes and take home messages discussed at the conference.

 

A post-factual society?

Commissioner Carlos Moedas, in his opening address, described science validity as being under attack from so-called ‘post factual politics’. Events like the UK referendum decision to leave the EU is an example of this, but many others exist throughout Europe and the world: 41% of the French population now believe vaccines are unsafe.

Part of the reason for this shift in distrust towards expert advice is the rapid rise of non-traditional media platforms. More than ever the public are exposed to information from all angles and across multiple platforms. These platforms can spread misinformation (whether willingly or by accident) and therefore the ‘facts’ by themselves may no longer assumed to be correct.

Moedas believes that a more transparent and open approach to science advice can help increase public trust. He stated that people can understand the answers if they understand the process. Then, the public can more accurately judge the facts from the fiction.

 

So why should we engage?

Science advice to policy is often considered a two-way interaction, between the scientists and the policy makers, however the public are vital in this relationship. Scientists need to engage with both, not just because it furthers their research impact, but also it helps ensure a future for their science. Scientists must involve themselves with correcting this dangerous shift towards ignoring the facts. Democratically elected representatives will act on what are the public’s interests (for fear of not being re-elected if nothing else). So scientists need to make sure their work is communicated effectively and accurately to the public. When the public cares, so do the politicians. Although this is selfish reasoning, a scientist needs to ensure the public cares about their research, otherwise funding may be reallocated to other areas of public interest.

Additionally, the positives of effective science advice to policy are plentiful: capacity building, increased sustainability, society can become safer, the economy improves etc. In the EU, ultimate policy decisions are made by member states who are predominantly diplomats, not scientists. Therefore, effective science advice mechanisms to ensure policy makers learn about science are needed. However, this this is no easy task.

 

No one size fits all

Multiple approaches to science advice exist across the EU and the world, e.g., chief scientific advisors, national academies, third party organisations, in-house organisations, advisory boards / mechanisms. Several presentations from this conference showed that each situation requires tailoring; no one mechanism will work in every situation and not all mechanisms will work in each situation.

More concrete science-policy mapping is needed to better understand these different mechanisms and to help outside institutions comprehend how they might contribute.

 

The EU’s Scientific Advice Mechanism

A new Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM) has been created to improve science advice transparency within the European Commission. SAM was described in a previous GeoPolicy post, but essentially it comprises a seven-member panel of scientific experts who work closely with the Commission and EU science academies to study scientific topics of societal interest. The network of scientific academies, known as SAPEA, can call upon external experts to contribute to the topics of focus. Currently three topics have been identified: Cybersecurity, Light duty vehicle real-drive CO2 emissions, and Glyphosate.

SAM is in its early stages, being established only a year. Needless to say, the science-policy world is observing its progress and performance with eager eyes.

 

Tips for communicating to each other

Both scientists and policy workers need better training at understanding the different languages each group speaks. Several tips / suggestions mentioned during the conference are listed below.

For scientists:

“There is an increasing pressure on scientists to deliver and they are now subject to closer public scrutiny. Therefore, scientists cannot take their authority for granted, they need to earn it, especially in polarising situations where public opinion is split” Pearl Dykstra (SAM panel member)

  • Less is more (when explaining science). Can you explain your science in 140 characters? Or pitch your research during a quick conversation in a lift? If so, this gets you a 20 minute meeting with a commissioner / MEP etc.
  • “Scientists should put themselves in shoes of policy makers more often. They need to address societal needs: there is no shortage of these” (Tibor Navaracsics, DG Education, Culture, Youth and Sport).
  • Try to understand the constraints of democracy. Science is only one factor that is considered during policy making.
  • The job of scientists is to explain what is, not what ought to be. Politicians will advocate, scientists must give the facts on which to base advocacy. Both sides need to be aware of their own biases.
  • Engage with both politicians and the public to increase trust.
  • Timing is essential. The Joint Research Centre (JRC) ensures their science advice is given when most needed. For example, disaster response requires warnings / reports / impact maps to be published as soon as possible, the JRC issues these within 2-3 hours.

 

Tips for policy workers:

  • Anticipate / expect what researchers need (policy-for-science) for them to do effective research.
  • Decrease bias, policy workers need to be open to their need for advice. “We need politicians to trust the science process even if they don’t like the results” (Bernhard Url, European Food Safety Authority).
  • Champion evidence-based policy making as we cannot afford policy mistakes. This can be hard, as it may seem counter intuitive at times.

“Both sides need to create space and time for the science policy dialogue” Yoko Harayama (Cabinet Office for Japan)

 

What if we fail?

There are many challenges with providing effective mechanisms for science advice to policy. Saruto Ohtake (Cabinet Office for Japan) gave a poignant talk about what the effects can be when this relationship fails.

The 2011 Japanese earthquake, which induced a tsunami and the shutdown of the Fukishima nuclear power plant, killed over 10,000 people. Scientific research was not communicated quickly enough and policy workers failed to ask for advice.

The results of this failure were catastrophic and subsequently, public trust in science dropped 10-20%. Effort on both sides is now needed to restore public trust and to ensure similar events never happen again.

This talk highlighted another reason for why scientists and policy officials need to have an effective and trusted relationship with each other and the public.

Although the conference focused more on the challenges at hand, rather than implementing potential solutions, it still provided much discussion and food-for-thought. Luckily, these topics could be mulled over after the conference with a refreshing blond Belgium beer.

Additional Reading

Principles of science advice to government: key problems and feasible solutions

GeoPolicy: 8 ways to engage with policy makers

Dealing with post normal science and post truth politics

Science and Policy Making: towards a new dialogue website

Follow

Get every new post on this blog delivered to your Inbox.

Join other followers: