Lise Moawad and Sebastian Ludwicki-Ziegler

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Social studies, technology assessment and the pandemic: a comparative analysis of social studies-based policy advice in PTA institutions in France, Germany and the UK during the COVID-19 crisis’.

Undoubtedly, the COVID-19 pandemic has raised public awareness of the use of science by political decision-makers. Policymakers favouring plug-and-play solutions offered by ostensibly neutral ‘hard science’ is arguably not new, and the impression is somewhat reinforced by STEM-leaning structures dedicated to the assessment of science and technology. The underlying predisposition towards social sciences, arts and humanities of being somewhat biased or not neutral is still a commonplace critique. However, there has been a notable change in the role of social studies (encompassing humanities, arts and social sciences) for science and technology assessment in the last few years. Social studies were arguably at the forefront of debates examining the impact of COVID-19 on education and rule compliance. Taking advantage of their insights and methods has not just been welcomed by policymakers but has become an unavoidable necessity. 

Our research evaluated the integration of social studies in parliamentary structures dedicated to the assessment of science and technology (PTA structures) in France (Office parlementaire d’évaluation des choix scientifiques et technologiques [OPECST]), Germany (Büro für Technikfolgen-Abschätzung beim Deutschen Bundestag [TAB]) and the United Kingdom (Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology [POST]) during the COVID-19 pandemic (3/2020 to 2/2022). To assess the role of social studies in these PTA structures, we utilised Hanna Pitkin’s concept of representation and used a multi-method approach (document analysis and prosopography). While our results give grounds for some optimism that social studies has potential for providing valuable insights, its analytical capacities and evidence – albeit to varying degrees – remain underutilised.  

Continue reading →

K. L. Akerlof, Todd Schenk, Adriana Bankston, Jessica L. Rosenberg, Anne-Lise K. Velez, Lisa Eddy and Nikita Lad

This blog post is based on the Evidence & Policy article, ‘Training researchers to engage in policy in the United States: mapping the growth and diversity of programme models’.

In recent years, state-level programmes that support the engagement of scientists in public policy have been growing across the United States. These initiatives offer training, networking and government placements to help bridge the gap between research and policymaking. However, little data exist on the structure, goals and impacts of these programmes. A recent study describes this evolving national landscape, using programmes in Virginia as a case study.

The rise of science policy training
A growing number of programmes seek to prepare researchers for active roles in policy. These initiatives include:

• Academic programmes offering courses, certificates, degrees and workshops in science policy.
• Student organisations that provide training and networking opportunities.
• Government placements and fellowships that immerse researchers in legislative and executive roles.

Continue reading →