Author: Federica Spaggiari // Editors: Erin Pallott & Elan Shellard

When people are asked to think of a word to describe politics, the answers range from laws to corruption, taxes to parties, elections to inflation. Would you consider ‘science’ as a response? Surprisingly, the first definition of politics according to the Oxford Dictionary does Indeed, politics is not just about defending ideals, persuading voters and, for the election-winning politicians, legislating. It is also defined as “the science and the study of government and the state”.  Politics is based on several theories, the first being developed by philosophers in Ancient Greece. Throughout the years, they aimed to create an efficient and rightful system to govern communities of people. Existing democracies result from the application, refinement, and adaptation of these scientific theories to modern societies’ structures and needs. Similarly, scientific research continually progresses and has always addressed human society’s needs. Thus, advancements in research mustn’t remain just notions in textbooks and scientific journals but, when possible, are brought into people’s lives. This can only happen when there is a constructive and open-minded discussion between scientists and policymakers.

Scientists and politicians: Two sides of the same coin

Ideally, scientists should bring forth results and evidence of their research, being critical and objective about the positive, but also negative, impacts it may have on society. Instead, policymakers are expected to envision how scientific discoveries from any research field could be turned into something beneficial for citizens’ lives, considering their feasibility and costs. Despite sounding like two complementary roles, it has been difficult to find effective ways of communication and cooperation. This is due to a lack of education, on both sides. On the one hand, researchers in science fields are not aware of how complex policy making can be and are not likely to compromise on their results. On the other hand, policy makers tend to choose what is politically advantageous for them, rather than what is actually more valuable for the society and upheld by strong evidence.

What do the experts say?

A recent commentary published in Nature entitled “The Future of Science Advice” reported the results of a worldwide survey where participants (400 science-policy specialists) were asked to give their opinion about the status of science advice systems in their home countries. These include formal processes or institutions that aim to utilise scientific expertise and evidence to support government decisions. The majority of respondents classified their opinions of these systems as patchy or poor. They identified the lack of understanding of the scientific method by politicians and policy-making-related processes by scientists as two of the biggest barriers to effective scientific advice. The politician-scientist crosstalk necessarily increased during the pandemic, and more than half of the participants agreed that science advice was factored into pandemic-time policy-making. However, 39% thought that a better science-advice system could have further reduced the death toll.

Science and politics – the state of the art

In order to overcome the absence of a clear and reliable process for research reporting, countries all over the world have created scientific advisory boards and services. Their role is to advise politicians when policy making involves the evaluation of scientific evidence.

The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) is an exchange service based in the UK Parliament that “works to ensure that the best available research evidence and information is brought to bear on the legislative process and scrutiny of Government”. This office runs international projects in collaboration with developing states’ governments to train their Members of Parliament (MPs) and governing bodies in the science and technology-related legislation field. POST’s activity is important and provides informed advice to the UK’s Government Office for Science led by the Government Chief Science Adviser (GCSA).

In addition to institutional figures, the European Commission has created Knowledge4Policy (K4P), an evidence-based platform whose mission is to close the gap between politicians and scientists. Here, EU Commission scientists provide policymakers with reviewed, tailored, and reliable knowledge. All EU scientists can join the community by contributing and suggesting ideas to discussions about turning science into public policy. As part of the same project, the EU offers online self-paced “Science for Policy” and “Work with Evidence” training to scientists and policymakers, respectively, who wish to know more about each other’s worlds.  Looking overseas, in the US, the Evidence-Based Policymaking Act was approved in 2018. This act requires each government agency to appoint officers for evidence evaluation and leaders’ education on utilising the best available science and data. The US President also names the members of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, who are not part of the federal government and are responsible for advising the President on policy matters where science and technology understanding is needed. Science advisory bodies take different shapes in each country and a comprehensive state-by-state list can be found at this link.

Mutual listening and education for real change

Independent organisations have an important role in the science-politics discussion as well. The UK is the home country of Sense about Science, an independent charity that collaborates with MPs, researchers, and members of society. It aims to increase public interest in, and access to science, by advocating for a transparent use of evidence by politicians, and helping researchers to provide them with clear evidence-based suggestions. They also assist and train scientists in communicating their science effectively to a lay audience. Among the multiple initiatives they sponsor, Evidence Week is one of their most important and impactful events. During the week, MPs have the chance to meet with researchers and members of the public to identify and discuss the most pressing topics, learn how to better handle scientific evidence, and communicate how policies have been informed by strong scientific proof. Evidence Week has become an unmissable annual event because the opportunities for these branches of society to exchange ideas and concerns are rare. In 2025, it took place between the 20th and 24th of January and you can find a brief summary of what happened at this link.  

How can young scientists get involved?

As the Nature commentary highlighted, there is still a lot that our societies can do to facilitate the connection between scientists’ and legislators’ worlds and to make evidence-based research an integral part of the political discussion. Early-Career Researchers (ECRs) have the crucial responsibility and advanced tools to make their scientific experience publicly impactful. Sense about Science has also created a network for ECRs, offering workshops and networking opportunities, to empower them to engage in public conversations about science and research. It is important for ECRs to have an open and proactive attitude towards the opportunities to disseminate science. These are chances to make science accessible and understandable to a lay audience, to uncover the beauty and excitement of scientific discoveries, and to show that researchers’ work all over the world has slowly and steadily changed people’s lives for the better.

What’s next?

Communicating science and establishing constructive dialogues with different members of society is challenging, but crucial to allow science to make the world a better place for everyone. An open-minded attitude is going to make all the difference and allow constructive and fruitful inter-disciplinary dialogues. There are still improvements that can be made in sharing, understanding, and leveraging what scientists discover, but we surely are heading in the right direction.

About the Author
I am Federica and I am a PhD student at the CRUK Manchester Institute. In my project, I am looking at identifying new therapeutic strategies to treat Small Cell Lung Cancer. I am a curious and inquisitive person, and I am passionate about making science more accessible to the public and showing how impactful research can be in everyone’s life. Outside of the lab, I love playing (and watching!) tennis, hiking and listening to a good podcast.
LinkedIn | X: @fedespaggiari_