When I was about to create this post, with yet another interesting link that I found, my eye fell immediately to my latest post entitled “How academics can engage with policy: 10 tips for a better conversation“. So I found it funny when I realised that this post is about a good practice guide in Dialogue between Academies and Policy Communities. The first was about academics and policy-makers, this one is about academies and policy-makers.
I am a bit confused about all the different associations of Academies worldwide. I am trying to understand what is the purpose of each one and what differentiates them. There is ICSU, there is the IAP, there is EASAC, there is Academia Europaea, etc, etc. I hope one day I will be able to find out what are the differences.
How academics can engage with policy: 10 tips for a better conversation
Academics need to look at different ways they can communicate their research to policymakers, says Matthew Goodwin –here’s his advice on not wasting their time, or yours.
UPDATE: Experts and experimental government [5/4/2013, GUARDIAN]
The idea of giving a clever man a desk in Whitehall is outdated, argues Geoff Mulgan in the third of our series on scientific advice. We need to take seriously the evidence about evidence
In the absence of a science policy textbook, I would like to ask the scholars of science policy to forgive me for doing an online search for its definition. In fact, I invite them to comment to this post with a more scholarly definition.
In the meantime I have found the following definitions of science policy online. According to wikipedia:
Science policy is an area of public policy concerned with the policies that affect the conduct of the science and research enterprise, including the funding of science, often in pursuance of other national policy goals such as technological innovation to promote commercial product development, weapons development, health care and environmental monitoring [SENSE 1]. Science policy also refers to the act of applying scientific knowledge and consensus to the development of public policies [SENSE 2].
A Royal Society of Chemistry report defines it as:
Science policy is quite a broad term, encompassing not only areas in which science can help achieve policy goals [SENSE 2], but also areas in which policy itself influences science, for instance funding [SENSE 1].
Yesterday a letter was sent to The Telegraph by the Science Is Vital campaign.
This was accompanied by an article in the same newspaper “Spend more on science or fall behind G8” by Stephen Adams.
And another article was written in the Guardian “Science funding: time to reverse the decline” by three founders of the Science Is Vital campaign, Jenny Rohn, Stephen Curry and Richard P Grant.
Finally, see article on the campaign website for data.
Please also see a recent Guardian article “Does the UK need to spend more on basic research?” by Kieron Flanagan