Global perspectives on scientists’ roles in legislative policymaking

The question of how scientists should engage in policymaking has spurred both pragmatic and philosophical debates for decades. Scant empirical research addressing how experts perceive the different roles scientists might play complicates efforts to resolve the debate. Further, these literatures focus on Western developed nations, largely ignoring the efforts of governments worldwide to build science advisory capacity. In a survey of global legislative experts, we investigate their preferences and rationales for how scientists can be helpful to policy processes in legislatures, testing for effects of expertise and national development on role choice. The majority (79.2%) of respondents—science advice researchers, providers of scientific information to government, and users of scientific information within government—said that scientists should work closely with policymakers and others to integrate scientific results in policy decisions. The next most preferred role was that of reporting and interpreting results (53.0%). The primary reasons the respondents gave for scientists’ engagement were to improve decision-making (40.5%) and communication of science, whether through (two-way) dialogues (34.2%) or (one-way) explanations (18.4%). Few said that scientists should advocate for specific policies (18.6%). Respondents from developing nations were more accepting of ‘advocacy’ roles and less supportive of scientists that solely publish in academic journals than experts in developed countries. These experts’ preference for highly integrative work by scientists in policy suggests a global re-envisioning of the relationship between the science and policy communities even within highly political contexts. Institutional support from government and academia will be required to support these shifts