GeoLog | #policy Archives

GeoPolicy: What inspires you to be a scientist?

Noel Baker: Project Manager, Royal Belgian Institute for Space Aeronomy May 2, 2019

Horizon Geoscience Dinner Debate, Brussels 2018. Credit: Anita Stein, EFG

What inspires you to be a scientist? For me, the motivation comes from a strong desire to make the world a better place, to use our skills and knowledge as scientists to help society and shape the future. Increasing our collaboration and involvement is an excellent way to expand our influence, but for early career scientists (ECS) like me, it can be a challenging task.

EGU has an incredible opportunity for ECS to overcome this challenge: the 2019 ECS Policy Competition. As the very fortunate winner of 2018, I received an invitation to an exclusive event in Brussels: a dinner debate, attended by an impressive guest list of EU Commission and Parliament members as well as influential scientists and industry leaders. This fantastic experience gave me a platform to voice my opinion, learn how to get more involved in policy, and directly network with policymakers and important stakeholders.

The format of the dinner debate was simple and effective. First, a high-level panel of speakers discussed the evening’s theme: how geoscientists can play a bigger role in tackling societal challenges. Afterwards, the discussions continued over dinner in a round-table activity, allowing each of us to give our thoughts and perspectives – these discussions were recorded and the summarised version can be seen here. I was able to have informal conversations with influential politicians: definitely a rare opportunity! The overwhelming consensus of the evening was that there is a strong need for researchers in geoscience fields to get more active and involved in interdisciplinary efforts in order to address societal issues. It was pointed out that we, as scientists, are uniquely qualified to provide highly informed advice in our fields of expertise. We are strongly encouraged to initiate a dialogue with scientists in multiple disciplines as well as policymakers and other stakeholders, and our input is extremely valuable. Activities like this dinner debate provide an excellent means for that communication to happen.

I consider the dinner debate to have been a very worthwhile experience for me. The opportunities didn’t end that evening, though; as a direct result of this event, my network of contacts has grown, and to my delight, I have since received job offers as well as invitations to other events and activities. Taking part in EGU’s policy competition has had a positive impact on my career, and I wholeheartedly recommend it to any ECS with an interest in expanding their network outside of science and getting more involved in policy.

The EGU’s 2019 Policy event will take place on October 17 in Brussels. It will focus on the five upcoming Horizon Europe Missions (adapting to climate change, cancer, healthy oceans & inland waters, climate-neutral & smart cities, and soil health & food) and how the geosciences can help contribute to these. the ECS Policy Competition winner will receive an invitation to the event, support for travel expenses within Europe and one night accommodation. You can find more information about the competition and how to apply here.

GeoPolicy: Science in policymaking: Who is responsible?

Maria Rubal Thomsen April 26, 2019

Great Debate, panel in action. Credit: Chloe Hill

Should scientists actively approach policymakers in order to guide their decision-making processes, or is it the policymakers’ responsibility to seek scientific advice? In the first of the Great Debates at this year’s European Geosciences Union General Assembly in Vienna a mixed panel of policymakers and geoscientists tried to answer who should be responsible for making sure that science was used in policymaking and identify the main challenges for bringing the two worlds together.

After debate moderator Sarah Connors, a senior science officer at the IPCC, provided an introduction into the session, the first to give their opinions were the science-oriented audience. Through a live poll conducted at the beginning of the session, 142 people representing more than 55% of the audience voted that policymakers are responsible for ensuring that science is used in policymaking. Only one third of the attendees voted in the opposite direction.

The panellists agreed that this is not a black-and-white debate. “It’s a two-way communication path,” said Kasey White, Director for Geoscience Policy at the Geological Society of America. Günter Blöschl, Head of the Institute of Hydraulic Engineering and Engineering Hydrology at Vienna University of Technology compared scientists and policymakers to businesses and consumers: “there are very clear incentives on both sides.”

According to Blöschl, scientists should not be issue advocates but honest brokers: they should “expand the scope of choices without having a special interest in promoting a single one.”

A majority of the audience believes policymakers are responsible for ensuring science in their policies. Credit: Maria Rubal Thomsen

Detlef van Vuuren, Professor in integrated assessment of global environmental change at the Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, developed this idea further: scientists who want to play the honest broker role must be impartial, informative and policy-relevant. They have to be aware of world views and be dialogue-oriented.

David Mair, Head of Unit at the European Commission Research Centre, had a slightly different opinion, believing that scientists shouldn’t take for granted that everyone agrees that public policy should be informed by scientific evidence. There are plenty of actors in the world who think differently, so scientists need to argue this on the basis of values.

“Other values are out there competing, so we each have to champion what we believe in,” said Mair.

A challenging dialogue

Bridging the realms of policymaking and science requires effective dialogue between the two communities, a challenging endeavor due to the “disconnection between the languages of social and physical sciences,” said Paul Watkinson, Chair of the Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA) and the Counsellor to the Director for European and International Affairs of the French Ministry for Ecological and Inclusive Transition.

“Language is different, terms are unknown between the two communities,” added White.

Language is not the only obstacle. To van Vuuren, scientists do not only need to speak clearer, but they also have to speak more and speak louder.

Moreover, policymakers need results from an interdisciplinary approach that include not only physical and natural sciences but also a humanistic perspective. Scientists, on the other hand, tend to fragment research and specialise in very specific topics that are easier to control. This results in a mismatch between demand and supply of science.

Another difference between the two fields is the timescales they consider: while science says “more research is necessary” policymakers think “something must be done now,” even if the requisite knowledge is not yet available. Blöschl explained that aiming for long-term solutions instead of short-term patches in a four-year electoral term framework can completely change the course of decision-making processes.

To establish a stronger relationship between scientists and policymakers, both sides need to revise their processes and implement changes. For instance, a number of the panellists suggested rethinking the training of policymakers and introducing incentives in the scientific career path to motivate scientists to engage in communication and outreach activities.

If you would like to see the session in full please click here to webstream the exciting debate.

By Maria Rubal Thomsen, EGU Press Assistant

GeoPolicy: Science for Policy at the 2019 General Assembly!

Chloe Hill March 29, 2019

Elections of a President. Credit: the European Parliament. (Distributed via Flickr).

The EGU General Assembly is the largest geoscience meeting in Europe. Not only does it have a diverse array of sessions that you can attend within your own area of expertise but there are also thousands of sessions that will be outside of your research field, as well as sessions on topics that can be applied to a wide range of scientific divisions, jobs and industries – such as science for policy!

The line-up for the 2019 EGU General Assembly includes Short Courses, Disciplinary Sessions, Townhall Meetings, Interdisciplinary Sessions and Union-wide Sessions that focus on various aspects of science-policy. Even if you’re just a bit curious about science for policy, it’s definitely worth adding a couple of the policy related sessions outlined below into your #EGU19 schedule!

Science and Society (SCS)

Science and Society is the new union-wide session format that provides a space to host scientific forums dedicated to connecting with high-level institutions and engaging the public and policymakers.

Science, Politics and European (dis)integration: A conversation of Geoscientists: Join Ilaria Capua and Mario Monti in a discussion on the impact of populism on European integrity and scientific research. The session will also outline optimal strategies to deliver clear scientific messages to key institutions.

Great Debate (GD)

Science in policymaking: Who is responsible?: This Great Debate aims to determine who is responsible for ensuring that scientific evidence is used in the creation and evaluation of policy: scientists OR policymakers?

Union Symposia (US)

Plan-S: Should scientific publishers be forced to go Open Access: With support from the European Commission and European Research Council, plan S demands that research supported by participating funders must be published in Open Access journals by January 1, 2020. This session will debate the questions surrounding the implementation of the plan and its consequences.
Past and future tipping points and large climate transitions in Earth history: This session will discuss the advances in modeling forces triggering and amplifying Earth’s climate and carbon cycle. Given that Earth’s climate is currently experiencing an unprecedented transition under anthropogenic pressure, understanding the mechanisms behind the scene is vital and can help steer policy.

Short Courses (SC)

Science for policy: How can scientists get involved in the policymaking process? Are you interested in getting involved in science for policy or just want to learn more about it? Then this is the Short Course for you! It will include a wide-range of science-policy opportunities and activities from speakers working at the science-policy interface.
How to increase the potential policy impact of your research: This session will provide an overview of the ‘skills and training agenda’ to foster evidence-informed policy-making created by the EU Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC).
Tales from the IPCC: From research to report: What is the process behind producing an IPCC report and what’s it really like to be a scientist working in this process, right at the interface of science and policy?
Land and soil carbon dynamics at the science-policy interface: Focusing on land and soil carbon dynamics, this session will outline how scientific findings enter the policy arena, how policy organisations work, and how policies are turned into agreements at national or regional scales.

Disciplinary Sessions

The Science-policy interface in hydrology – essentials for more impactful science: The session will highlight the necessary skills to facilitate the uptake of science in policy formulation and implementation with a specific focus on water-related issues.
Hydraulic and environmental risk analysis for sustainable water management policy and practice. Where do we stand?:Come to this HS session to find out where we stand with sustainable water management policy and practice.
Water resources policy and management – Water-food-energy-environment systems: This session will highlight emerging research in the policy-relevant field of water-food-energy-environment (WFEE) systems.
Methods and Tools for Natural Risk Management and Communications – Innovative ways of delivering information to end users and sharing data among the scientific community: This NH session will outline methods and tools that scientists can use to get interpretable, properly contextualized information to end-users such as policymakers or the general public.

Please keep in mind, that this isn’t an exhaustive list! There are a lot of other sessions at the EGU that can either be directly linked with science for policy or that include research relevant for policymakers. You can find more policy-related sessions on the EGU General Assembly Programme (which you can access online and via the EGU2019 mobile app) and through the General Assembly special sessions page. This page tags sessions under the categories of policy, diversity, media, early career scientists and public engagement so that GA participants with an interest in these topics can find relevant sessions quickly. If you think a session or event within one of these categories is missing, please email the EGU Media and Communications Manager at media@egu.eu with a link to the session, and the category where it should be listed and why.

If you have any further questions or comments regarding the EGU General Assembly’s policy activities, feel free to get in touch via email or come and meet me and the rest of the EGU office in person at the EGU Booth on Friday April 12, 10:15–10:45.

EGU’s response to potential changes to the European Research Council

Chloe Hill February 11, 2019

EGU’s response to potential changes to the European Research Council. (Credit: EGU/Foto Pfluegl)

A major re-organisation of the European Commission’s Research and Innovation Directorate General is scheduled to take place this year with a goal to revise staff reporting procedures and increased coordination between the agencies. While improved coordination may be of benefit in some areas, concerns have been raised about the potential impact these changes may have on the European Research Council (ERC), the European funding agency for excellence in research that sits within the Directorate but has the distinguishing feature of being independently managed by scientists. We believe this autonomy is a key and critical element of the undisputed success of the ERC, since its creation just over a decade ago. This success has been, in large part, due to the capacity of the agency to listen, act upon, and adjust to the needs of the scientific community. Without this close relationship with the research community, the ERC’s ability to support the very best frontier science will be compromised. Of particular concern, are potential changes in the remit of ERC’s Scientific Council as governing body, which is undoubtedly a cornerstone of the ERC’s credibility, success and international recognition.

The EGU strongly supports the unique ability that the ERC currently has to respond directly and independently to the needs of the scientific community. Being the sole European funding agency for scientists, designed and governed by scientists, has enabled it to become one of the world’s leading and most respected funders of frontier research, with over 70% of completed projects leading to discoveries or major advances. The EGU unequivocally supports the Scientific Council’s ambitions for Horizon Europe to “consolidate the ERC’s success by ensuring its continuity, agility and scale-up in the next framework programme”.

We encourage EGU members to react to this EGU response. If you have comments that you would like to see added to this piece, please email policy@egu.eu or add your comment on this blog post.