A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda

9977 10 54838 2 154009 document 54838 A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda.PDF application/pdf dbb08e4f83020a3a3c8903d42b227ee9 MD5 81148 2016-05-09 14:20:09 https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/9977/1/A%20collaboratively-derived%20science-policy%20research%20agenda.PDF 9977 1 1 application/pdf text en public cc_by

A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda.PDF

published 54871 2 154060 document 54871 lightbox.jpg image/png c96caaca176103c789de758f0f7e681f MD5 70382 2016-05-09 14:30:19 https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/eprint/9977/2/lightbox.jpg 9977 2 2 image/png other Thumbnails conversion from text to thumbnail_lightbox en public

lightbox.jpg

preview.jpg

medium.jpg

small.jpg

http://eprints.org/relation/isVersionOf https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/document/54838 http://eprints.org/relation/isVolatileVersionOf https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/document/54838 http://eprints.org/relation/issmallThumbnailVersionOf https://pure.iiasa.ac.at/id/document/54838 archive 351 disk0/00/00/99/77 2016-01-15 08:46:47 2021-08-27 17:39:16 2016-01-15 08:46:47 article show Sutherland W.J. Bellingan L. Bellingham J.R. Blackstock J.J. 1893 A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda pub iis_rsp prog_rpv prog_risk Ethical decision making; Evidence based practice; Government; Participatory management; Policy; Political participation; Public-private partnership; Reproductibility The need for policy makers to understand science and for scientists to understand policy processes is widely recognised. However, the science-policy relationship is sometimes difficult and occasionally dysfunctional; it is also increasingly visible, because it must deal with contentious issues, or itself becomes a matter of public controversy, or both. We suggest that identifying key unanswered questions on the relationship between science and policy will catalyse and focus research in this field. To identify these questions, a collaborative procedure was employed with 52 participants selected to cover a wide range of experience in both science and policy, including people from government, nongovernmental organisations, academia and industry. These participants consulted with colleagues and submitted 239 questions. An initial round of voting was followed by a workshop in which 40 of the most important questions were identified by further discussion and voting. The resulting list includes questions about the effectiveness of science-based decision-making structures; the nature and legitimacy of expertise; the consequences of changes such as increasing transparency; choices among different sources of evidence; the implications of new means of characterising and representing uncertainties; and ways in which policy and political processes affect what counts as authoritative evidence. We expect this exercise to identify important theoretical questions and to help improve the mutual understanding and effectiveness of those working at the interface of science and policy. 2012-03 published Public Library of Science (PLoS) 10.1371/journal.pone.0031824 XJ-12-066 PLoS ONE; 7(3):e31824 (9 March 2012) [doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031824] 1156 public PLoS ONE 7 3 e31824 TRUE 1932-6203 FALSE info:eu-repo/semantics/article