theGIST #Sci4Soc

SCIENCE INPOLICY-MAKING

THE ROLE OFEVIDENCE-BASED POLICYIN A MODERNWORLD

theGIST

Science for Society 2014

WELCOMEIt is with great pleasure that we open the doors to thefirst ever theGIST Science for Society conference.

The science of today’s technologically sophisticated society is central toaddressing the challenges and complexities of modern life. Yet the policiesthat govern society have often experienced a disparate relationship withscience. This is partly because scientific evidence has often beenmisunderstood or manipulated to fit political agendas and scientists haveveered away from public debate. This has major implications for politicallegitimacy, scientific authority and democratic participation.

This leads to the question we at theGIST would like to explore: what roleshould science and scientific evidence have in policy-making?

To answer this question, we will bring students and early career researchersface to face with experts and policy-makers in an attempt to foster constructiveand forward-thinking discussion. In this booklet you can read the shortlistedstudent contributions in full and explore the work and interests of our speakersand panellists.

Contemporary societies face both age-old and new challenges, and thedecision about which methods we as citizens want to adopt to tackle them isan important one. Scientists can be part of the solution – and you can help setthe agenda. Welcome to Science for Society 2014.

2

theGIST

#Sci4Soc

PROGRAMMEWelcome

12:45 – 13:00 Welcome to theGIST Conference ‘Science for Society’ 2014

Speakers incl. Q&A

13:00 – 13:45 Dr. Chris Masters CBE, FRSE13:55 – 14:40 Dr. Sarah Armstrong14:50 – 15.35 Dr. Elaine Murray

Break*

Student speakers

16:15 – 17:15 Three student speakers (authors of the shortlisted articles)

Panel session

17:15 – 18:00 Panel session

Chair: Mr. Des McNultyPanel: Prof Tracey Howe, Mr. Richard Bellingham, Cllr Maggie Chapman+ Three student speakers

Networking

18:00 – 19:00 Networking

*Notice that we also have small breaks between speakers.

3

theGIST


Isn’t Leonardo DiCaprio dreamy?Not only is he a world-class actor,but he is also an activist. InSeptember Leo delivered a worldtrending speech at the UN cli-mate change summit; in it helaid bare some of our biggest cli-matic woes– ocean acidification,extreme weather, prolongeddroughts and unprecedentedmelting of the ice caps– beforecalling upon the world to act.However, he made it clear thathe is not an expert or a scientist;he is a concerned citizen. So giv-en the hard-core scientific basisof his talk, it begs the question,why him? Where were the scient-ists?

Throughout government,policy decisions are made on thebasis of scientific evidence:which drugs to provide on theNHS, which animals to protect,how best to meet our energy andfood demands… basicallyeverything that affects day-to-daylife. To gather the data required,the UK funds seven researchcouncils, four higher educationbodies, three nationalacademies and a space agency!Domestically the UK has a cur-rent annual research and sci-ence budget of £4.6 billion. Andthis is an underestimate, as itleaves out targeted fundingpledges and contributions tobodies like the European Re-search Council.

Given the massive invest-ment, it may not be surprising

when the evidence gathered isused to inform policy– what issurprising is when it is not.Between 1987 and 2011,European fishing quotas were setroughly a third higher than scien-tifically advised, leading to over-fishing. In 2009, the UKupgraded cannabis from a classC to class B drug despite poten-tial medical benefits and it beingless dangerous or damaging toone’s health than alcohol. Ourhealth minister even supportsthe use of homeopathy – that isabout as far from evidence-basedas you can get. What could leadpolicy-makers to disregard thescientific evidence they have soheavily invested in accumulating?

Perhaps they can’t access orunderstand it? Of the UK’s 650elected MPs, only 69 can claim abackground in science, techno-logy, engineering or maths(STEM). When this is added tothe prohibitive tradition of pub-lishing scientific data behind thepay-wall of specialised journals,full of jargon and impenetrablestatistics, this means they are ac-cessible to few of our chief policy-makers. So the burden of com-munication commonly falls oneither the media or scientific ad-visors.

Much of science journalismcan be described as “infotain-ment”. This is where science iscommunicated in a light-hearted,cursory manner lacking any crit-ical analysis. What of scientific

advisors? These often work well,but on contentious issues can beproblematic. In 2007, the UKgovernment took advice from itsthen Chief Scientific Adviser, SirDavid King, when deciding on acontroversial badger cull; pro-posed to help combat the spreadof bovine TB. His recommenda-tion to proceed was roundly criti-cised by the scientific communityas allowing political agenda tooverrule independent scientificevidence. However, much of thiscriticism remained internal, andwhen looking at the debate it ap-peared to be animal welfare andgreen environmental groups onone side (later fronted by rockstar Brian May), and on the oth-er, senior government advisorsand the powerful National Farm-ers’ Union, making slapdash (yetconvincing) economic argumentsand personal appeals.

Multiple initiatives have beenimplemented in order to increaseconnectivity and direct commu-nication between scientists andpolicy-makers. One is the estab-lishment of the Centre for Sci-ence and Policy at the Universityof Cambridge in 2009, which hasbeen largely well received. An-other is the Royal Society PairingScheme, which has linked over150 scientists with MPs and civilservants since 2001, establish-ing long-term connections. Butperhaps a lack of understandingand knowledge transfer is notthe real problem; maybe

WHERE MYSCIENTISTS AT?Despite serious government investment into scientific evidence,a lot of policy still appears to be uninformed. James D. Burgon,PhD student in evolutionary biology at the University ofGlasgow, asks why.

4

theGIST

#Sci4Soc

something more disquieting is atplay, and maybe policy-makersare not the ones we need to tar-get?

The harsh reality is that a lotof scientific evidence is dis-carded because it does not fit adesired worldview. Reduce car-bon emissions? What aboutcheap energy and budgetflights? We forget that policy ismade off the back of manifestopledges used at general elec-tions to win votes: MP option onewill reduce fishing based on diffi-cult to access data in the wakeof by-catch discard scandals; MPoption two will fight for jobs andthe traditional way of life. Thepeoples’ champion is clear. Aswell as increasing communica-tion with policy-makers, scient-ists must engage with thegeneral public in an easily ac-cessible format, and hope thatincreased understanding willlead to the election of more evid-ence-conscious representatives.

With science playing an ever-

increasing role in our lives, andmass misunderstandings ofthings like genetically modifiedcrops and vaccinations (e.g.MMR), the field of science com-munication has rapidly expan-ded. Whether it is throughtelevision, science festivals orsocial media, never has the pub-lic had such easy access to lead-ing research. But how thatinformation is delivered is some-times questionable. Researcherswrite papers for scientific journ-als themselves, but their work iscommunicated to the public bythird parties with varying de-grees of understanding and theirown personal agendas. Increas-ingly academics are embracingsocial media, but often these arejust another jargon filled methodof internal communication– ajournal in 140 characters or less,a blog about… I’m going to haveto Google that…

Scientists need to evolve forevidence-based policy to tri-umph. Politics is a harsh environ-ment, and currently we do not

hold the selective advantage. Ifscience is going to outcompetepersonal agenda we need tochange the habitat, we need tomake the general public more re-sponsive to science. In journa-lism and politics scientists arefew in number, but maybe it is ti-me this changed. Scientists havebeen trained to critically interpretevidence, and often have a goodidea of the social and economicimpacts of their work. We needto communicate our research di-rectly and openly challenge mi-sconceptions.

Until academics creep outfrom behind their institutionalcomfort zones we will allow mis-information, pseudoscience andpersonal opinion to eclipse evi-dence-based policy. As a scien-tist I find this unacceptable. You?

____________________ReferencesCan be found in the online ver-sion, www.the-GIST.org

5

FISHING QUOTAS SET A 3RD HIGHER THAN ADVISED - WHY? CREDIT: JOE DUNCKLEY VIA FLICKR

theGIST


The global environment is chan-ging at a pace unprecedented inhuman history. Biodiversity lossand mass human migration canhelp introduce novel diseases ofzoonotic (meaning: animal) originto our burgeoning, globally-con-nected society. Our love of cheapfares and weekends away usingrapid international travel can as-sist the spread of disease world-wide. So, what can we do toeffectively contain these new dis-eases, for which there may be novaccine, or even treatment? Howdo we keep people safe and givethem the best information onhow to protect themselves? Howdo we account for that most mys-terious element of all: human be-

haviour?First, it’s necessary to try to

predict human responses to pub-lic health information andpolicies. How does informationabout your risk for disease im-pact subsequent behaviouralchange, if at all? Do you washyour hands more during an epi-demic? Do you curl up with a pintat the Winchester and wait forthis all to blow over? And finally,if you do opt for hanging outalone, at the pub, or hand-wash-ing, how does that behaviourchange affect the spread of dis-ease? These long-standing ques-tions are finally being answeredby scientific research into differ-ent ways to use computational

epidemiological modelling. Com-puWHAT, you say?

Well, it works like this: thesesuper-powerful, super-fast (andsuper-cool looking) computermodels simulate epidemics ofdisease, using massive amountsof data on a worldwide scale.They use data about demograph-ics, geography, and even howmobile the population is alongmajor transportation hubs, in away that’s easy to see. It’s like areal-time map for human move-ment during an epidemic. Nowwe’re working on integratingeven more information into thesemodels. For instance, when wemake a recommendation tochange your behaviour during an

RESPOND AND REACT!How do we deal with the human response to risk in atime of pandemic disease? PhD student in public health,Jaime Anne Earnest, takes a closer look.

6

GLOBAL TRAVEL MAKES DISEASE HARD TO CONTAIN. CREDIT: N I C O L A VIA FLICKR

theGIST

#Sci4Soc

epidemic, do you actually do it?And if you do, what do you actu-ally do? The great thing is we canassume in the model that YOU,and your friends, are very con-scientious, and do everything toprotect yourself, while also as-suming there are some peoplewho won’t change their beha-viour.

We can also look at the differ-ent ways people get sick. For in-stance, if you catch influenza,how much do you cough? Areyou too sick to move? Not feelingtoo bad at all and happily skip-ping about town spreading dis-ease to your local barkeep andbarista? Do you have a hardtime shaking that cough, or doyou recover quickly?

It might seem like just com-mon sense during a global dis-ease event to tell everybody towash their hands, mind theirmanners, stay home if they’resick, or get a vaccination if one isavailable. But what if washingyour hands isn’t really your thing(gross!), or what if everyone de-cides that pint down theWinchester is more compelling

than staying in to watch Netflixuntil the danger has passed?What if you pre-booked that skitrip and it’s non-refundable? Or,honestly, what if you think thescientists are all just full of it?

Those are all possible scenari-os during a global disease event.So how do scientists know whatto tell the policymakers to do,and perhaps most importantly,tell you what to do? What’s thebest way to save lives, savemoney? We integrate as many ofthe possible scenarios into ourcool-looking models, and we seewhat the likely outcome is, de-pending on what it is you’re likelyto do, and how sick you mightbe. This gives us evidence forwhat will, and will not be likely towork, in stemming the spread ofdisease. And we can test thepossible outcome of multiplecombinations of different beha-viours, meaning we can createreally sophisticated, targeted re-commendations like never be-fore.

Thus far, we’ve made prettygood progress in using thesemodels, what we know about

how disease spreads, and howyou react to our recommenda-tions to attempt to figure outwhat the best course of action isfor you to keep yourselves, andthe people you love, safe. Asmore detailed information comesin about how you behave duringa disease outbreak, how youtravel, and how we can commu-nicate with you effectively, ourmodels get more detailed andaccurate. Ultimately, we’re aim-ing to be able to tell you the bestthing to do to lower your risk, andthe best time to do it.

And as for stopping thespread of disease with our new,detailed recommendations?Well, that, my friends, dependson you.


7

POWERFUL COMPUTERS CAN SIMULATE EPIDEMICS. CREDIT: JUSTGRIMES VIA FLICKR

theGIST


A cursory glance through historycertainly seems to suggest thatthe church and science have…some differences. That’s puttingit nicely, of course. Clashesbetween the church and scientif-ic developments are relativelycommon in history books – fromthe sun-centred solar system tothe evolution-creation debate tothe controversies surroundingthe ethics of stem cell research.It’s easy enough to suppose thatthe church isn’t friendly to cli-mate change, either – but thatassumption may keep us from avaluable collaboration to fight cli-mate change.

The church, as a whole, haslargely been excluded from thearena that is climate changecommunication. There are manyreasons behind this. Both sides– members of churches andmembers of the scientific com-munity – tend to distrust eachother, and attempt to keep theirrealms separate. When interac-tion does occur, both sides tendto bring stereotypes and as-sumptions to the table, leadingto a breakdown in discourse.Some even revert to name call-ing. The politics of the matterdon’t help much, particularly inthe United States, where politicalschisms between liberals andconservatives bleed over into sci-entific and religious realms.

The political disputes sur-rounding climate change, sci-ence, and religion need not

prevent a combined action by sci-entific and religious institutions,however. People sceptical of sci-entists or the media may bemore inclined to trust their minis-ters and other religious leaders;people worried at about stickingout for their pro-environmentalbehaviour may be encouraged bythe group dynamic of congrega-tion-wide environmental action,the presence of which may in-spire others to become engagedwith environmental issues whotypically wouldn’t.

Churches get things done. TheU.S. Civil Rights movement, theabolition and temperance move-ments here in the U.K. – all ofthese social movements accom-plished by church congregations.The competence of congregation-al communities has historicallybeen impressive. Churches haveconsistently manifested theirpower in beginning and support-ing social movements, and whatis climate change action if notpotentially one of the most im-portant social movements of ourtime?

The church, as a whole, hasshown over the course of its ex-istence a strong ability to devoteitself to causes much larger thanitself – issues and events that ex-tend far beyond the scope of ahuman lifespan or geographicspace. Climate change and glob-al poverty could be compared atthat level – both are so mind-bogglingly large, and perhaps im-

possible to cure altogether, but astrong effort can be made to re-duce some of the effects.

The potential support behindthis social movement is strong innumber – it is particularly stag-gering in the U.S., with 39% ofU.S. residents attending somesort of religious service eachweek, the vast majority of them aChristian denomination. Evenmore importantly, the peoplewho by and large tend to go tothese services are exactly thekind of people who are not cur-rently taking action against cli-mate change, though they maybe involved in many other charit-able causes.

Presenting climate change asa social issue, rather than apurely scientific one, may wellencourage church members toaction they would not otherwisetake. This is consistent with theideas behind framing theory,which suggest that people reactto information and suggestionsdifferently depending on the con-text in which they are presented.This particular frame, of climatechange of a social issue, offers adifferent mental approach to cli-mate change action, and alsoserves to better connect climatechange to the interests of thechurch.

The population most at riskfrom climate change are the pop-ulations already the concern ofmost churches inclined to globalservice – the poor, both domest-

JESUS TAKES ONGLOBAL WARMINGHow does the church fit into the fight against climatechange? Mary Kristen Layne, a PhD student researchingenvironmental discourse at the University of Glasgow,investigates.

8

theGIST

#Sci4Soc

ically and globally. The samecommunity that benefits mostfrom the installation of a well orthe construction of a clinic (com-mon church mission trip pro-jects) will also be one of the onesfirst affected by changes in glob-al temperatures and the increas-ing numbers of severe weatherevents. It is not difficult to ima-gine a near future where themost common church missiontrip task is the erection of seawalls, to limit the effects of sealevel rise on low-lying island com-munities (again, popular destina-tions for mission trips).

The role church climatechange action can take is poten-tially powerful at home as well,not just limited to externalcauses and projects. Individualswithin churches have internal-ized a large number of lifestylehabits that may not make theirlives easier, but make themmore fulfilling. (Examples ofthese include tithing and dona-tions, the Lenten abstentionfrom sweets, restraint from vari-

ous worldly pleasures, and theact of devoting one day a week, ifnot more, to church attendance.)This ability to internalize and de-vote oneself to habits in thename of a cause greater thanoneself has the potential to ex-tend into the realm of climatechange action. Connecting envir-onmental tenants to the Christi-an faith – through the Genesis1:27 mandate of global steward-ship, perhaps – may lead to alarge-scale adoption of supportfor environmental causes on anindividual and congregationallevel.

It’s all too easy to dismissChristian communities in today’shumanist society (and particu-larly in post-Christian Europeancountries, where church-goersare in the minority of the popula-tion), but assuming these groupscan’t be involved in climatechange activism is a mistake.Some religious groups arealready on board – InterfaithPower and Light, for instance,has mounted a U.S.-wide cam-

paign for climate justice. Muchpotential remains, however, asthe tension between science andchurch lingers unnecessarily.Combined with the history of tak-ing a powerful stance of issuesof social justice, the devotion ofchurch members to seeingthrough commitments offers astrong argument for increasedcommunication between Christi-an communities and scientific in-stitutions and non-profits.Perhaps the climate changebattle can be the first step to-ward reconciliation for theselong-conflicting institutions.


9

CAN THE CHURCH INSPIRE A NEW SOCIAL MOVEMENT? CREDIT: JUAN TELLO VIA FLICKR

theGIST


SPEAKERSDr. Chris Masters, CBE, FRSE, is a research chemist by training and currentIndependent Co-Chair Scottish Science Advisory Council, previous chair of theScottish Higher Education Funding Council.

Dr. Sarah Armstrong is a Senior Research Fellow in Sociology at the Universityof Glasgow. She is interested in how penal policy and popular culture shapeour understanding of punishment. She studies and works with policy-makers,and has advised the Scottish Government on its penal policy.

Dr. Elaine Murray is a former research scientist with degrees from theUniversity of Edinburgh and the University of Cambridge. She currently work asa Labour MSP for Dumfriesshire and is the Co-Convenor of the Science andTechnology Cross-Party Group as well as Deputy Convenor of the Life SciencesCross-Party Group in the Scottish Parliament.

PANELLISTSProfessor Tracey Howe is Deputy Chair of Glasgow City of Science andProfessor of Rehabilitation Science at Glasgow Caledonian University. Shebegan her career as a chartered physiotherapist before acquirering an MSc, aPhD and a CertEd, wanting to make a contribution to the field of evidence-based medicine.

Mr. Richard Bellingham is Director for the Institute of Future Cities at theUniversity of Strathclyde and a Senior Researcher specialising in sustainablesmart cities, energy policy and low carbon energy issues. As part of theSustainable Glasgow Initiative, he aims to make Glasgow one of Europe’s mostsustainable cities within 10 years.

Cllr Maggie Chapman is the Co-Convenor for the Scottish Green Party (withPatrick Harvie), a councillor for the Leith Ward of City of Edinburgh Council anda lecturer in cultural geography, environmental ethics and social justice atNapier University. Her research focuses on conservation ethics with regards tointroduced species.

10

theGIST

#Sci4Soc

CHAIRMr. Des McNulty is a former Labour MSP, having been both Shadow Ministerfor Transport, Infrastructure and Climate Change and Shadow CabinetSecretary for Education and Lifelong Learning. Prior to entering the ScottishParliament, he worked as a sociologist at Glasgow Caledonian University.Currently, he is Public Policy Knowledge Exchange Officer and Honorary SeniorResearch Fellow at the University of Glasgow.

Glasgow Insight into Science and Technology (theGIST) is a sciencecommunication project created jointly by students from the University ofStrathclyde and the University of Glasgow, which explores science andtechnology news, ideas and challenges, in Glasgow and the wider world.

With over 100 contributors, we produce regular articles, videos and podcasts,set up workshops and seminars, and publish a printed magazine. We consistmainly of undergraduates and postgraduates but also welcome members ofstaff. Our continued goal is to communicate science clearly, accurately andpassionately - and teach everyone who wants to learn.

If you want to get involved, shoot us an email at [email protected]

Find us at

www.the-GIST.org Glasgow.GIST

@GlasgowGIST GlasgowGIST

11

Thank you forsupporting us

Documents

theGIST #Sci4Soc