Are there connections between the structures of political systems and types of scientific advice to policymak - ing? This volume unites case studies from the Netherlands, France, the European Union and the USA that provide an overview of different institutional arrangements, focusing on issues such as the independence and balance of advice. Common to all is the question which forms of advice can increase the rationality of policymaking without loss of political legitimacy. From the Contents: Mark B. Brown: Federal Advisory Committees in the United States Paul den Hoed and Anne-Greet Keizer: The Scientific Council for Government Policy David Demortain: Designing Regulatory Tools for Pharmaceutical and Food Safety in the European Union Laurent Geffroy, Odile Piriou and Bénédicte Zimmermann: Scientific Expertise in Policy-Making: The Case of Work Policy in France Willem Halffman: The Dutch ́ ́Planning Bureaus ́ ́

Controversies over issues such as genetically engineered food, foot-and-mouth disease and the failure of risk models in the global financial crisis have raised concerns about the quality of expert scientific advice. The legitimacy of experts, and of the political decision-makers and policy-makers whom they advise, essentially depends on the quality of the advice. But what does quality mean in this context, and how can it be achieved? This volume argues that the quality of scientific advice can be ensured by an appropriate institutional design of advisory organisations. Using examples from a wide range of international case studies, including think tanks, governmental research institutes, agencies and academies, the authors provide a systematic guide to the major problems and pitfalls encountered in scientific advice and the means by which organisations around the world have solved these problems.

This report contains a collection of papers from a workshopâ€"Strengthening Science-Based Decision-Making for Sustainable Management of Scarce Water Resources for Agricultural Production, held in Tunisia. Participants, including scientists, decision makers, representatives of non-profit organizations, and a farmer, came from the United States and several countries in North Africa and the Middle East. The papers examined constraints to agricultural production as it relates to water scarcity; focusing on 1) the state of the science regarding water management for agricultural purposes in the Middle East and North Africa 2) how science can be applied to better manage existing water supplies to optimize the domestic production of food and fiber. The cross-cutting themes of the workshop were the elements or principles of science-based decision making, the role of the scientific community in ensuring that science is an integral part of the decision making process, and ways to improve communications between scientists and decision makers.

This report characterizes the international responses to the changing demands on the science policy process. Chapter 1 discusses the role of science advice in government decision making with regard to such issues as the science/policy interface, the decision-making environment, internal procedures & outside advice, quality control, risk assessment, science communications, and science in a social context. Chapters 2 & 3 review the key elements of different systems of science advising, best practices, and approaches to risk assessment & public communications in the European Union, New Zealand, the Nordic Union, the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, the World Bank, and national science academies. Chapter 4 contains case studies that examine the effective use of different principles for the incorporation of science into decision making. The final chapter reviews the main points & lessons learned.

Science for Policy Handbook provides advice on how to bring science to the attention of policymakers. This resource is dedicated to researchers and research organizations aiming to achieve policy impacts. The book includes lessons learned along the way, advice on new skills, practices for individual researchers, elements necessary for institutional change, and knowledge areas and processes in which to invest. It puts co-creation at the centre of Science for Policy 2.0, a more integrated model of knowledge-policy relationship. Covers the vital area of science for policymaking Includes contributions from leading practitioners from the Joint Research Centre/European Commission Provides key skills based on the science-policy interface needed for effective evidence-informed policymaking Presents processes of knowledge production relevant for a more holistic science-policy relationship, along with the types of knowledge that are useful in policymaking

‘Scientific advice to politics’, the ‘nature of expertise’, and the ‘relation between experts, policy makers, and the public’ are variations of a topic that currently attracts the attention of social scientists, philosophers of science as well as practitioners in the public sphere and the media. This renewed interest in a persistent theme is initiated by the call for a democratization of expertise that has become the order of the day in the legitimation of research funding. The new significance of ‘participation’ and ‘accountability’ has motivated scholars to take a new look at the science – politics interface and to probe questions such as "What is new in the arrangement of scientific expertise and political decision-making?", "How can reliable knowledge be made useful for politics and society at large, and how can epistemically and ethically sound decisions be achieved without losing democratic legitimacy?", "How can the objective of democratization of expertise be achieved without compromising the quality and reliability of knowledge?" Scientific knowledge and the ‘experts’ that represent it no longer command the unquestioned authority and public trust that was once bestowed upon them, and yet, policy makers are more dependent on them than ever before. This collection of essays explores the relations between science and politics with the instruments of the social studies of science, thereby providing new insights into their re-alignment under a new régime of governance.

The Politics of Evidence Based Policymaking identifies how to work with policymakers to maximize the use of scientific evidence. Policymakers cannot consider all evidence relevant to policy problems. They use two shortcuts: ‘rational’ ways to gather enough evidence, and ‘irrational’ decision-making, drawing on emotions, beliefs, and habits. Most scientific studies focus on the former. They identify uncertainty when policymakers have incomplete evidence, and try to solve it by improving the supply of information. They do not respond to ambiguity, or the potential for policymakers to understand problems in very different ways. A good strategy requires advocates to be persuasive: forming coalitions with like-minded actors, and accompanying evidence with simple stories to exploit the emotional or ideological biases of policymakers.