Connecting Scientists to Policy Landscape Analysis of Mechanisms Around the World Engaging Scientists and Engineers in Policy February 2017 Around the World
Connecting Scientists to Policy
Landscape Analysis of Mechanisms Around the World Engaging Scientists and Engineers in Policy
February 2017
Around the World
This project was made possible with the support
of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.
Published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science 1200 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20005 United States
© 2017 AAAS This material may be freely reproduced with attribution. Download this report and additional information at: aaas.org/GlobalSciencePolicy
CONTENTS
Report Team and Advisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1. Introduction: Background, Purpose, Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2. Connection Strategies and Influences: Primary Findings and Stakeholder Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3. A Typology of Immersive Connection Mechanisms: Fellowships, Internships, Pairing Schemes, Details and Rotations . . . . . . 20
4. Successful Engagement: Factors for Effective Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
5. Expanding Capacity: International Cooperation, Training, Meetings, and Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
6. Conclusion and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Appendix A: Science-Policy Engagement Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
TABLES, CHARTS, AND GRAPHICS
Landscape Analysis Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Representation of Stakeholder Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Geographical Representation of Survey Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Importance of Different Stakeholder Groups for Science-Policy Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Survey Responses on the Most Effective Mechanisms for Science-Policy Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Perceptions on Factors that Enable and Hinder Connections Between Scientists and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Benefits and Challenges of Immersive Science-Policy Engagement Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34–37
Summary of Elements of Immersive Science-Policy Engagement Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44–47
Sample Training Tracks for Science-Policy Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
2
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
Report Team and Advisors
Report Co-Chairs
Marga Gual Soler
Project Director,
Center for Science Diplomacy,
Office of International and Security Affairs,
AAAS
Cynthia R. Robinson
Senior Policy Advisor,
Center of Science, Policy, and Society
Programs, AAAS
Tom C. Wang
Chief International Officer,
Director, Center for Science Diplomacy,
Office of International and Security Affairs,
AAAS
Acknowledgments
The report co-chairs take full
responsibility for the content of this
report. We are grateful to the nearly
200 individuals who completed surveys
and participated in consultations, and
who came from an array of national
government agencies and ministries,
regional organizations and national
coalitions, higher education institutions,
policy centers and think tanks, nonprofit
and advocacy organizations, donors,
and the private sector. We also thank
the advisors who provided valuable
guidance and input as they were
tapped for different components of this
project, from initial concept to survey
design, dissemination and networking
with key contacts and stakeholders, to
text review and editing, and finally to
dissemination strategy.
Advisors
Solomon Assefa
Director, IBM Research—Africa
Kenya
Joanne Carney
Director, Office of Government Relations,
AAAS
United States
Michael J. Cheetham
Senior Advisor, National Institute of
Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering;
Former Head, U.S. Office, Indo-U.S.
Science & Technology Forum, and Director,
India Science & Technology Partnership
United States
E. William Colglazier
Editor-in-Chief, Science & Diplomacy;
Senior Scholar, Center for Science
Diplomacy, AAAS
United States
Frances Colón
Former Deputy Science and Technology
Adviser to the Secretary of State,
U.S. Department of State
United States
Yolanda L. Comedy
Director, Center for Advancing Science
and Engineering Capacity, AAAS
United States
Ernesto Fernández Polcuch
Chief of Section, Science Policy and
Partnerships, UNESCO
France
Peter Gluckman
Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister
New Zealand
Heide Hackmann
Executive Director,
International Council for Science
France
Norman P. Neureiter
Senior Scholar,
Center for Science Diplomacy, AAAS;
First Science and Technology Adviser
to the Secretary of State,
U.S. Department of State
United States
Erwin Schwella
Professor of Public Leadership,
Stellenbosch University,
Stellenbosch School of Public Leadership
South Africa
Atsushi Sunami
Vice President and Professor,
National Graduate Institute for
Policy Studies
Japan
Chris Tyler
Director, Parliamentary Office of
Science and Technology
United Kingdom
Vaughan Turekian
Science and Technology Adviser
to the Secretary of State,
U.S. Department of State;
Former Chief International Officer, AAAS
United States
James Wilsdon
Professor, Science and Democracy,
University of Sussex
United Kingdom
3
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As science and technology drive change in society, and
society drives change in governance, there is an increasing
need and demand for mechanisms that build relationships
among scientists, engineers, and policymakers to support
evidence-based policy and practice. In response to growing
interest in establishing science policy fellowships and other
methods to engage scientists in policy processes, the American
Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the
world’s largest membership-based general scientific society,
conducted a landscape analysis of such activities around the
world. Sponsored by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation,
the 18-month effort affirmed global demand to strengthen
connections between science and policy, highlighted factors
for productive engagement of scientists in the policy sphere,
identified more than 150 science-policy linkage mechanisms, and
clarified criteria to support their success.
The project entailed a literature review, surveys, research on
types of science-policy connection mechanisms, and individual
and group consultations. Over the period of May 2015 through
November 2016, information was gathered from nearly 200
science policy stakeholders in academia, government, nonprofit
organizations, international organizations, and the private sector
in nearly 50 countries across the globe.
This report employs the words “science” and “scientist” to
cover all STEM fields—science (including social and behavioral
sciences), technology, engineering, and mathematics. The
emphasis of the landscape analysis is on immersive, experiential
mechanisms that involve scientists directly in the policy
environment, providing them opportunities to contribute to and
learn about the science-policy interface.
The NeedThe challenges that society faces at the local, national, regional,
and international levels are becoming increasingly complex.
Governments around the world tackle multifaceted problems
that science and technology contribute to or can help address,
including challenges related to energy, water and food resources,
healthcare, employment and economic stability, infrastructure
and communications, environmental sustainability, and security.
In September 2015, countries around the world adopted the
United Nations’ set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals to
“end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all.”
Each goal has specific targets to be achieved over the next 15
years.1 Due to the widespread and long-term impacts of policies
addressing these highly transboundary and transdisciplinary
issues, it is increasingly valuable for policymakers, lawmakers,
and regulators to have access to the best available scientific and
technical information as a critical input to establish priorities,
make decisions, and develop and measure the effect of various
policies and practices.
Yet information itself is not sufficient. Scientific articles, research
reports, policy briefs, and other documents abound, but they
often are not framed in language or a context easily accessible
or useful to policymakers. Such materials may not be concise,
targeted to specific situations, or provided in a timely manner to
address urgent or emerging problems.
Even when such information is tailored for policy use, how
scientific information is conveyed and by whom are critical
factors.2 Traditional avenues to communicate scientific and
technical information and analyses to policymakers—in
individual roles such as chief science advisors or through expert
bodies such as national academies, advisory committees, and
blue ribbon panels—are typically reserved for distinguished
senior academics. However, the need for scientific and technical
inputs exceeds what can be provided from panels of scientists
tasked with discrete analyses, which are often generated over
months and years. Scientific input to policymakers should be
dynamic and continuous, provided by scientists who span various
disciplines and career stages. Moreover, the scientists engaged
with policymakers and in policy processes must view building
trust as an essential part of their role.
A Typology of Immersive S&T Policy Connection MechanismsGlobally, governments, universities, national academies,
professional associations, advocacy organizations, and other
stakeholders are striving to address this science-policy divide
through different approaches. This international landscape
analysis mapped immersive science-policy connection
mechanisms in a typology of four primary models: (1) fellowships,
(2) internships, (3) pairing schemes, and (4) government details
and rotations. The mechanisms enable scientists across various
career stages and disciplines to contribute to policy processes
and build relationships with policymakers.
Targeted capacity-building initiatives including workshops
and training programs also are growing at the national
and international levels, covering topics such as science
4
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
communication, science advice to governments, and science
diplomacy. Universities are introducing or expanding policy
curricula and establishing graduate degrees that encompass
science and policy. Networks of scientists and policymakers
interested in crossing boundaries to engage in policy are
flourishing. Although not considered immersive mechanisms,
these are all important components of the broader international
science policy landscape of activities. Some are also documented
in this report.
The approaches reveal a diversity of strategies and formats that
comprise the four general models targeting multiple branches of
government—executive, legislative or parliamentary, and judicial.
The mechanisms vary in scope, thematic and geographic focus,
target audience, and duration. The chart below summarizes
the four models. These are not mutually exclusive, as many
mechanisms combine elements across the different models.
These four models utilize immersive methods of experiential
learning that extend beyond theory to real world practice.
Applying scientific knowledge and methods to policy processes
requires communication and navigational skills not often
acquired through formal scientific training and education.
Immersive, relation-based mechanisms enable scientists to better
understand the policy arena and how research can be applied
to policy and societal questions and utilized within government
policy realms.
Typology of Immersive S&T Policy Connection Mechanisms
Model Target Group Duration Purpose
Fellowships Graduate STEM students
Early to mid-career scientists
Policymakers
Typically 1 year or longer, full time
Learn ways science impacts policy
Contribute unique skill sets and expertise to policymaking
Establish contacts, foster relationships, build networks
Increase comfort of policymakers in working with scientists
Expose scientists to policy processes and culture
Explore policy-related career paths
Transition to civil service
Internships Undergraduate to graduate STEM students
Early-career STEM graduates
Generally 3 months to 1 year, full time
Learn ways science impacts policy
Develop awareness of policy processes and culture
Establish contacts, foster relationships, build networks
Explore career options
Pairing Schemes Early-career to senior scientists
Policymakers
Typically 1–2 weeks per year
Improve mutual understanding
Establish contacts, foster relationships, build networks
Details and Rotations
Early-career to senior scientists
Civil servants
Generally 2–4 years, full time
Deepen understanding of policy processes and culture
Contribute expertise to specific issues or projects
Establish contacts, foster relationships, build networks
Transition to civil service
5
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
These mechanisms also enable mutual learning, support
cooperative projects and processes, and cultivate long-term
relationships and collaborations that afford even broader
outcomes and impact. Whereas establishing connections and
fostering mutual understanding and trust are at the forefront
of many mechanisms linking scientists to policymakers, the
underlying structure and administration are critical to ensuring
the efforts are sustainable over time and move beyond individual
value to broader organizational and societal scope and benefit.
Factors That Support Science-Policy LinkagesThe landscape analysis entailed researching and gathering
perceptions on the criteria, conditions, and factors that
support or impede linkages between scientists and policy in
different parts of the world. It assembled and classified more
than 150 connection mechanisms in the four broad models
and investigated these to ascertain opportunities to guide
enhancements of existing efforts and development of new
initiatives.
Following is a summary of factors that influence successful
science-policy engagement efforts. These were identified
through the landscape analysis, gleaned from AAAS’s decades of
experience operating its Science & Technology Policy Fellowships
in Washington, D.C., and also informed by the report Elements of
a Successful Science and Technology Policy Fellowship Program
for State Legislatures.3
Political/Institutional Support: Active champions are necessary
within and outside government to build and maintain momentum
for science-policy connections. A sense of ownership is important
not only for the operating entity (if different from the host
government office) but also for the participating government
ministries, agencies, and parliamentary or legislative bodies that
host the scientists. This is especially critical for long-term success
when funding is provided from external sponsors.
Broader Impact: Successful efforts emphasize the opportunity
for contribution of scientific knowledge to support policy
development and implementation as well as professional
development. Both afford long-term outcomes and broader
impact for societal and organizational results as well as individual
benefit. Leadership development, applied research, and
individual career enhancement opportunities attract supporters,
funders, and participants.
Sustainable Funding: Stable financial support is critical to
develop and maintain mechanisms, solidify branding and
reputation, and engage in evaluation to support continual
enhancement. A diversity of internal and external funding
sources reinforces the objective or non-partisan nature of
the mechanisms. Sole-source government funding also has
been successful in cases where the programs are not tied to a
specific political party and are maintained through changes of
government.
Meaningful Engagement: Participants contribute and gain
the most from well-planned experiences that afford active
engagement and interactions that cultivate deep learning.
Targeting these experiences to the education level of the
participant is important for taking full advantage of the
knowledge and skills the participant brings. This enables more
meaningful outputs and longer-term outcomes for the receiving
policy entity, as well as broader social impact.
Multi-Perspective Integration: Mechanisms that cultivate and
synthesize multidisciplinary, multisector, and multi-stakeholder
input are more comprehensive and robust in addressing complex
challenges. Integration of STEM disciplines with perspectives
from a range of constituencies facilitates broader systems-based
thinking for realistic problem-solving that considers critical social,
economic, political, and cultural contexts.
Incentives, Compensation, and Support: Creating incentives
that acknowledge and reward civic and public engagement of
scientists and engineers is critical, especially within academia.
Policy-savvy academics can contribute significantly to their
institutions through knowledge of government funding sources
and strategy. The ability to target research proposals to
government interests and needs, and to frame communications
to policymakers to garner support by conveying how academic
research and innovation contribute to local communities and
the broader economy is imperative. For efforts involving longer-
term investment of time and effort, adequate compensation and
support for fellows, as well as flexibility and recognition in the
academic career progression, are required to attract participants
and enable their dedicated focus.
6
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
Appropriate Infrastructure: Sufficient organizational staffing
and capacity are critical to operate well-run, efficient, and
effective programming at the designated scale. Activities range
from promoting to recruiting to selecting and placing participants,
conducting orientation and professional development
programming, facilitating participant networking, and managing
relations with policy leaders and government ministries,
departments, and offices. Depending on the political, legal, and
cultural frameworks, in some instances a scientific nonprofit
association or consortium may be the most effective organization
to operate science-policy connection mechanisms. In other cases,
academic institutions or government entities may be appropriate.
Measurable Value: To measure the contributions of science-
policy engagement mechanisms, programs must track shorter-
term outputs, as well as longer-term outcomes and impacts. This
includes direct support for policy, developing S&T leadership
capacity, and influencing continued engagement at the
intersection of science and policy through participants’ career
choices and achievements.
Community: Strategies to foster a sense of community among
participants in science policy activities and across mechanisms
cultivate broader communication and flow of information,
resource sharing, and collaborative activities for broader impact.
RecommendationsA common and primary theme throughout this project has been
the need to engage and nurture a new generation of scientists
around the world to meet current and future demand at the
science-policy interface. The international landscape analysis
concluded with an overarching recommendation to cultivate
and network such boundary-spanning STEM leaders4 who can
engage successfully at the intersection of science and policy.
A focus on communication, knowledge sharing and collaboration
will help address both need and demand internationally.
Cultivate and network boundary-spanning STEM leaders around the world to engage at the science-policy interface.¡¡ Establish more immersive science-policy engagement
mechanisms to give scientists the tools to address complex
societal challenges, especially in countries and regions where
policymakers are not already well linked to the scientific
community.
¡¡ Broaden the diversity of scientists and engineers engaging at
the science-policy interface by expanding opportunities for
and recruiting participants from underserved populations and
geographic regions, as well as from a variety of disciplines,
backgrounds, cultural perspectives, genders, and career
stages.
¡¡ Create opportunities to network and forge connections among
participants, alumni, funders, and administrators across
communities to foster innovation and global collaboration.
¡¡ Establish general core competencies and outline sets of skills
that empower boundary-spanning expertise in the S&T policy
arena to support shared understanding and aims across
different political and cultural environments.
¡¡ Expand and create trainings, courses, meetings, and
networking opportunities to facilitate boundary-spanning
learning and connections.
¡¡ Foster incentive structures within academia that reward
science-policy engagement, outreach, mentoring, and other
avenues of civic service.
7
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
Communicate the applications of science and how they serve society.¡¡ Foster an ethos of civic engagement internationally by
training STEM students on the ability and responsibility of
science to help meet the needs of countries and citizens
around the world.
¡¡ Increase training opportunities to researchers, faculty, and
students for effective communication about science to
non-scientific audiences, with an emphasis on translating
the applications of research to spark innovation and solve
problems, in ways that can be readily understood by the
public and policymakers.
¡¡ Demonstrate opportunities for and the value of policy-related
nonacademic career paths that provide meaningful avenues
to communicate and apply science for society.
Facilitate knowledge sharing and collaboration.¡¡ Facilitate the exchange of information about activities and
mechanisms so that current efforts can benefit from other
models and experiences, and to inspire the creation of new
mechanisms informed by successful practices.
¡¡ Strengthen science diplomacy and advance regional and
global cooperation on science and technology policy by
cultivating connections among national, regional, and
international science and policy stakeholders.
¡¡ Establish an online global science policy resource and
networking hub to provide centralized access to information,
tools and practices, case studies, lessons learned, training
and funding opportunities, events, and science policy jobs
and related news.
The recognition and involvement of stakeholders from academia,
government, nonprofits, industry, and the funding community
are all critical for ultimate success of these efforts to build more
effective science-society connections.
The landscape analysis focused on the range of relationship-
building mechanisms and pathways enabling direct interaction
between scientists and policymakers—as opposed to the
different ways scientific information flows into policymaking—
and identified key criteria and factors supporting their success.
The emphasis is on people as connectors in structures for
individual and collective engagement. This report serves as
a guide to enhance existing initiatives and to develop new
mechanisms to bridge the divide between the scientific and
policy communities worldwide.
A number of such contemporary activities are converging to
contribute valuable inputs and advance collective effort around
the world. For example, the International Network for Government
Science Advice (INGSA) is leading an initiative to establish
principles for providing ethical, transparent science advice that
will provide a critical foundation for the science-policy interface
internationally.5 The Japan Science and Technology Agency
has also been engaged in developing a “Code of Conduct for
Scientists.”6
The Evidence-Based Policymaking Collaborative, launched in
September 2016, has developed principles for evidence-based
policymaking and is creating tool kits, case studies, briefs, and a
research clearinghouse to support policymakers, agency heads,
and other leaders seeking to improve results in the public sector.
A three-year project on scientific advice for global policymaking,
launched in August 2016 by the InterAcademy Partnership in
collaboration with the Institute for Advanced Study, specifically
targets strengthening the science-policy interface with a focus on
inputs to the United Nations.7
Finally, beyond the specific programs highlighted as case
examples in this report, several new science policy fellowship
programs have been launched or piloted since 2015 in Australia,
Canada, India, and the United Kingdom. Argentina and Spain
have communicated their intention to establish science policy
fellowships in the near future.
This convergence of activity to inform policy and highlight
the importance of the science-policy interface creates an
ideal environment to advance a culture of international civic
engagement for scientists. The moment is pivotal to cultivate a
global force of boundary-spanning STEM leaders to help meet the
needs of countries and citizens around the world.
Science has as its greatest purpose contribution to the
benefit of all people and the planet. It is our civic duty to be engaged and support the integration of scientific evidence into national, regional, and global policymaking.”
Rush Holt, CEO, American Association for the Advancement of Science
9
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Background, Purpose, Methods
BackgroundAs policy decisions increasingly involve scientific or technical
issues, countries have recognized the need for better connections
between the scientific and public policy domains. Scientists
involved in policy act as translators between two worlds, and
represent an emerging group of boundary-spanning professionals
building bridges that enable better solutions for the complex
challenges facing society.
A declaration from the 2015 World Science Forum noted, “The
independence, transparency, visibility and accountability of those
who receive and provide advice has never been more important.”8
Moreover, those scientists engaging with policymakers, or in
some cases scientists-turned-policymakers, are only as effective
as they are trusted.9, 10 In a new era of “post-truth,”to shape
public opinion and influence policy decisions,11 direct contact with
scientists and engineers is even more essential.
To stop evidence-based policy losing its clout, researchers
need to engage with policymakers and understand their needs.”
E. William Colglazier, editor-in-chief, Science & Diplomacy
Yet scientists often are criticized for not moving their science
“beyond the ivory tower” and for their lack of skill and focus in
communicating to nonscientific audiences, especially
policymakers and the public. The matter is often not a lack of
interest. Scientists may lack skills, career incentives, and
opportunities to effectively support policy or to communicate
successfully with policymakers. Just as C. P. Snow advocated
almost 60 years ago, there remains the need to “build bridges,
to further the progress of human knowledge and to benefit
society.”12
Today, there are few professionals who successfully bridge
the two worlds. Heide Hackmann, executive director of the
International Council for Science (ICSU), has argued that science
policy must do more to help dismantle boundaries separating
disciplines, regions, and scientists, with the goal of producing
knowledge in support of a sustainable and just world. She
envisions “a new global science policy paradigm” in which
scientists not only integrate their efforts with those of colleagues
from other disciplines and fields but also work iteratively with
decision makers, policy shapers, practitioners, and other societal
stakeholders in open, networked knowledge arenas, involving
collaborative learning and problem-solving.13 14
Activities that immerse scientists in the policy realm are among
the most successful means of fostering this cultural exchange.
“To stop evidence-based policy losing its clout, researchers need
to engage with policymakers and understand their needs,” noted
E. William Colglazier, the editor-in-chief of Science & Diplomacy.15
He emphasized in a September 2016 article in Nature, “To build
awareness and links, science funders and societies should offer
fellowships for early- and mid-career scientists, engineers and
medical professionals to spend time in government.”
A variety of structures for integrating scientific and technical
expertise into policymaking have emerged internationally,
reflecting distinctive cultures and traditions of decision making.
These can be formal or informal, permanent or ad hoc, operate at
different levels of government—local, state, federal, regional, and
supranational—and involve scientists at different career stages.
10
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
Policymakers need to obtain scientific inputs under different
timeframes, depending on the stage of the policy process and
the type of policy, and these requirements dictate the nature
and duration of the interaction with science experts. A 2014
briefing paper titled Science Advice to Governments,16 produced
by INGSA, outlines two main routes for providing scientific
information to policy: in-house capability and external advice as
outlined below.
¡¡ Internal input: Government agencies directly conduct
research and oversee funding that supports research
and analysis to provide information for policymaking.
Examples include Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and
Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the European
Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC). A growing number
of countries have established the post of chief scientist or
chief science advisor to government agencies, ministries, and
within their respective executive offices to provide, oversee,
and coordinate the infusion of science into the policy process.
¡¡ External input: Traditional external government advisory
structures include science advisory committees, councils, or
specially appointed panels comprising members of national
academies and learned societies serving in their expert
capacity on broad science issues or particular subjects.
Examples include the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering
and Innovation Council (PMSEIC) in Australia, Japan’s Council
for Science, Technology and Innovation (CSTI), and the U.S.
President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST).
A 2016 Finnish report titled Scientific Support for Sustainable
Development Policies17 further refines scientific inputs to policy
into a typology of six models noted here.
1. The Independent Model: Independent groups or panels
of experts conducting scientific advice, assessment, and
monitoring.
2. The Integrated Model: Groups of experts integrated into the
governmental sphere, consisting not only of scientific experts
but also of parliamentarians, political decision makers, and
other stakeholders.
3. The Assignment Model: Demand-driven scientific support
provided for policymakers by task forces.
4. The Nested Model: Scientific support organized for
policymakers via institutionalized arrangements of “nested”
expert hierarchies (often research institutes).
5. The Advisor Model: Scientific advisors directly informing the
highest political actors (often aided by secretaries and other
bodies).
6. The Platform Model: Deliberative and co-productive
knowledge brokering arenas for science, including policy
interaction often organized by third parties.
11
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
Currently, the scientists and engineers participating in many
of these advisory structures and as chief scientists to their
government are typically accomplished later-career academics
serving full or part-time in cabinet-level roles or senior
researchers who retain their position at their home institutions
while contributing to the policy process ad hoc.
These approaches are critical, yet not sufficient, to meet the
wide-ranging needs for scientific inputs to policy. Nor are they
inclusive enough to address the increasing demand from early
and mid-career scientists around the world seeking engagement
in the policy realm, or aspiring to careers in government,
advocacy, communication, and other nonacademic roles focused
on contributing their scientific expertise to policy and society.
To address these demands from governments and policymakers
as well as scientists, AAAS, with support from the Gordon and
Betty Moore Foundation, conducted an international landscape
analysis to document the range of strategies and mechanisms
connecting scientists with policymaking around the world, along
with their challenges, benefits, and opportunities.
AAAS has operated its successful Science & Technology Policy
Fellowships (STPF) since 1973, and in the past 15 years the
association has received increasing inquiries for input and
guidance on establishing science-policy connection mechanisms
from governments, organizations, and scientists around the
United States and internationally. A number of programs are now
operating modeled on the STPF program (see case summary in
Chapter 3).
PurposeThis report presents the findings and recommendations from a
landscape analysis of mechanisms that connect scientists with
policy. The project had two broad objectives:
1. Map and categorize immersive mechanisms and models
connecting scientists and engineers with policy processes in
countries and regions around the world.
2. Assess the criteria, conditions, factors, and stakeholders that
support successful engagement and sustainable linkages
between scientists and policy processes in different regions of
the world.
The landscape analysis sought to:
¡¡ Ascertain perspectives on the challenges to and
opportunities for connecting science to policy and scientists
to policymaking from a range of stakeholders in different
countries and regions.
¡¡ Gather perspectives, data, and criteria for successful
engagement at the intersection of science and policy
internationally.
¡¡ Provide case examples, resources, and practical guidance
garnered from both successes and challenges to stakeholders
interested in creating mechanisms to connect the scientific
and policy communities.
¡¡ Develop recommendations to cultivate and support additional
and enhanced initiatives that directly engage scientists with
policymaking around the world.
This report does not seek to list every program or mechanism in
existence in every country. It instead showcases different models
and approaches that directly connect scientists with policy, and
extracts themes, best practices, lessons learned, and challenges
associated with establishing and sustaining such mechanisms
in different political, scientific, socioeconomic, and cultural
contexts.
The landscape analysis focused mainly on external mechanisms
for bringing or exposing scientists to policymaking; hence, it does
not analyze in-house government science-advice structures such
as chief scientists, advisory bodies, or embedded mechanisms
(e.g., science agencies or government research institutes).
Finally, “science” is considered in a broad sense as defined by
the different countries and organizations surveyed, generally
encompassing natural sciences, engineering, and social sciences.
Some mechanisms include the humanities as well.
12
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
MethodsThe landscape analysis utilized a combined approach of
quantitative and qualitative methods to map the paths through
which scientists connect with policymakers and engage in policy-
making processes internationally, and to assess criteria and
factors for success.
The focus was on people as connectors: the pathways and
mechanisms available to individual scientists to engage with
policy from a practical standpoint—as opposed to analyzing
the various roles scientists can adopt in policy and government
advice18 and the different ways scientific and technical
information flow into policymaking generally.
The geographic scope of the project was global. Data collection
consisted of a combination of internet research, literature
reviews, online multi-stakeholder surveys, and online and in-
person consultations.
Online Research and Literature Review: Online research
was conducted to identify existing science-policy linkage
programs and mechanisms, as well as to compile background
documentation, reports, and evaluations when available. The
literature review (confined to materials in English with a few
exceptions) identified numerous articles, books, chapters,
proceedings, reports, and studies addressing science-policy
linkages in various countries and regions. Internet research also
focused on network mapping of stakeholders engaged at the
intersection of science and policy.
Surveys: Two surveys were distributed internationally over a
period of six months. The first, a general survey, was structured
to gather data on the status of science-policy engagement in
countries and regions from broad stakeholder perspectives,
including academia, academies of science and industry, advocacy
groups, government, industry, multilateral organizations,
nonprofit organizations, and scientific societies. The general
survey was targeted to individuals in the science policy realm
via the project’s internal and external advisors, and the networks
of the AAAS Office of International and Security Affairs and the
STPF. Input also was solicited via snowball sampling, as well as
promotion through social media channels.
The general survey, distributed in English, was designed to solicit
the following data:
¡¡ Country or region represented.
¡¡ Stakeholders and institutions considered most important
for successful science-policy connections in the represented
country or region.
¡¡ Factors and criteria that enable or hinder science-policy
connections in the represented country or region.
¡¡ Perceptions on models of S&T policy connection mechanisms
considered most effective and why (answers were not
expected to be limited to specific country or region).
¡¡ Details, documents, and contact information for science-
policy connection mechanisms in the represented country
or region.
A second survey was targeted to gather the details of existing
immersive science-policy linkage programs and mechanisms
around the world identified from the general survey, online
research, and consultations
Consultations: Extensive, targeted individual and group
consultations were conducted over an 18-month period, primarily
taking advantage of the attendance of key stakeholders at
international events and meetings. Input was solicited via
semi-structured interviews. Participants included international
science policy experts from academia, government, multilateral
organizations, academies of science and industry, and science
attachés and counselors at embassies in Washington, D.C.,
in addition to participants in fellowship programs, training
events, and dialogue meetings. In-depth interviews also were
conducted with representatives related to some of the science-
policy mechanisms identified, including current and former
administrators, host institutions, and funders.
Ultimately, nearly 200 stakeholders from 50 countries were
engaged via the surveys and consultations. The majority of
respondents to the survey (90 percent) provided input from a
single-country perspective, while 10 percent represented regional
or supranational perspectives. More than 75 percent of the
science-policy linkage mechanisms identified are U.S.-based,
with the remaining quarter from other regions around the world.
13
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
Landscape Analysis Consultations
Event/Group Location Dates
ASEAN-US Science & Technology Fellowships Orientation Jakarta, Indonesia May 4-8, 2015
TWAS-AAAS Science Diplomacy Course Trieste, Italy June 8-12, 2015
World Science Forum 2015 Budapest, Hungary November 3-7, 2015
UNESCO Latin America & Caribbean Science Diplomacy Meeting Montevideo, Uruguay December 2-3, 2015
AAAS Annual Meeting 2016 Washington DC, U.S. February 11-15, 2016
Science Diplomacy 2016 Conference Washington DC, U.S. May 5, 2016
UN Science, Technology and Innovation Forum New York, U.S. June 6-7, 2016
European Open Science Forum 2016 Manchester, U.K. July 22-27, 2016
Science-Policy Symposium Buenos Aires, Argentina September 5, 2016
Latin American Open Forum Montevideo, Uruguay September 6-9, 2016
International Network for Government Science Advice Brussels, Belgium September 29-30, 2016
Ibero-American Seminar on Science Communication Puebla, Mexico October 10-15, 2016
Falling Walls Conference Berlin, Germany November 8-9, 2016
UNESCO World Science Day 2016 Paris, France November 10, 12016
Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research Professional
Development Seminar
Puerto Plata, Dominican
Republic
November 28-
December 4, 2016
15
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
CHAPTER 2. CONNECTION STRATEGIES AND INFLUENCES Primary Findings and Stakeholder Perspectives
Primary FindingsFrom June to December 2015, the general and mechanism-
specific surveys for the landscape analysis were disseminated to
ascertain perspectives on science-policy connection strategies,
mechanisms, and factors influencing success as well as
challenges, barriers, and opportunities. Recommendations for
connecting scientists with policymakers and policy processes in
countries around the world were solicited.
The majority of the 133 survey respondents were in academia
(40.6%) or government (36.8%). The remaining responses were
from representatives of academies of sciences and scientific
societies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), think tanks,
multilateral and international organizations, and industry.
The “other” category included mainly development finance
institutions and public-private organizations.
The survey input identified more than 150 science-policy connection mechanisms, of which upwards of 75 percent operate in the United States. They encompass a wide variety of formats and institutional arrangements, falling generally in the identified immersive categories of policy fellowships, internship programs, pairing schemes, and government details and rotations.
Trainings and international science policy dialogue and
networking meetings were not catalogued in the survey, but they
also serve as important venues that enable scientists to establish
both formal and informal connections with the policy world. Some
of these are highlighted in chapter 5.
Survey responses and inputs via consultations affirmed
increasing demand for science-policy engagement and capacity
building globally. Despite the number of available routes for
involving STEM professionals in policy-making processes, the
landscape analysis revealed the mechanisms often are not well
known within their own target scientific or policy communities,
and often are not connected to other mechanisms operating in
the same states, countries, or regions. Although more than 150
immersive mechanisms were identified, the study showed that
opportunities for scientists to learn to successfully engage in
policy-making processes are not sufficient to meet the needs
from governments for skilled boundary-spanning professionals or
to meet interest and demand from the scientific community.
In addition to a lack of broad awareness of existing mechanisms,
the landscape analysis revealed a lack of knowledge about
existing data, reports, curricula, and resources available to
support science-policy engagement. Many of the individuals who
provided input stressed the value of connecting networks and
communities to share resources, support communication and
collaboration, and advance a global community of practice of
STEM professionals operating successfully at the intersection of
science and policy.
Representation of Stakeholder Groups
Academia
Government
Non-profit Organization or Foundation
Other
Academy of Science
Think Tank
Multilateral/International Organization
Scientific or Engineering Society
Industry
40.6%
36.8
8.3
7.5
3.83.8
3.82.31.5
Academia
Government
Non-profit Organization or Foundation
Other
Academy of Science
Think Tank
Multilateral/International Organization
Scientific or Engineering Society
Industry
40.6%
36.8
8.3
7.5
3.83.8
3.82.31.5
16
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
Stakeholder Perspectives Data was disaggregated according to stakeholder groups,
geographical regions, and development level (high/upper-middle
income and lower-middle/low-income countries, as defined by
the World Bank19 and used by the UN) to ascertain any similarities
or differences of view based on these distinctions. Few
differences were revealed, beyond some slight variations noted
below in this section.
Overall, the government was considered the most important
stakeholder for the successful engagement between scientists
and policymaking across all countries and individuals
consulted, with a 74 percent response rate.20 Government
agencies, ministries, and legislative bodies generally are
the main recipients of scientific experts in various capacities
(e.g., government employees, fellows, interns, advisory board
members, chief scientists, visiting scholars). They are also the
largest funders of initiatives bringing scientific expertise into
government, either directly or through science funding agencies
and research foundations that can operate within or outside the
government.
Science funding organizations ranked second in importance, at 65
percent, universities and academic research institutions were a
close third, at 64 percent, and national academies of sciences and
national research councils received a 62 percent response rate.
Such entities are common in most countries around the world.
Scientific associations and advocacy/interest groups ranked
lowest, with a 24 percent response rate. Many countries do not
have scientific association structures or highly visible advocacy
organizations that can act as boundary-spanning entities, as
compared to those that exist primarily in North America and
Europe.
Nepal 1
Netherlands 1
New Zealand 2
Nigeria 5
Pakistan 2
Palestinian Territories 1
Panama 1
Rwanda 1
Slovakia 1
Slovenia 1
South Africa 12
South Korea 1Spain 1
Sweden 2
Switzerland 2
Thailand 3
2 to 31 response 4 to 6 7 or more
United Kingdom 9
United States 10
Uruguay 1
Vietnam 1
Zimbabwe 1
Argentina 3
Bangladesh 1
Brazil 3
Canada 4
Chile 2
Colombia 4
Costa Rica 1
Cuba 1
Czech Republic 1
Finland 8
France 2
Germany 1
Hungary 1
Iceland 1
India 2
Indonesia 1
Israel 1
Japan 2
Jordan 1
Latvia 1
Lebanon 4
Lithuania 1
Malaysia 4
Mexico 1
Mongolia 1
Namibia 3
Australia 6
Geographical Representation of Survey Respondents
17
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
Importance of Different Stakeholder Groups for Science-Policy Engagement
Not at all important
Slightly important
Somewhat important
Very important
Extremely important
Don’t know
Stakeholder doesn’t exist
Combined very & extremely
Government agencies and ministries
0% 8.3% 16.7% 24.2% 50% 0% 0.8% 74.2%
Science funding organizations
0.8% 12.9% 15.9% 38.6% 26.5% 2.3% 3% 65.1%
Universities and research institutions
1.5% 6.9% 26.7% 36.6% 27.5% 0.8% 0% 64.1%
National Academies of Sciences / National Research Councils
3.8% 11.4% 22% 29.5% 32.6% 0.8% 0% 62.1%
Scientific societies
3.8% 15.2% 28% 33.3% 18.2% 1.5% 0% 51.5%
Multilateral/inter-governmental organizations
1.6% 17.8% 31% 24.8% 15.5% 7.8% 1.6% 50.3%
Think tanks 9.2% 19.8% 35.9% 23.7% 5.3% 2.3% 3.8% 29%
Private companies
8.5% 20.8% 35.4% 16.2% 10.8% 6.2% 2.3% 27%
Private foundations, charities and non-profit organizations
10.8% 23.1% 35.4% 15.4% 9.2% 3.8% 2.3% 24.6%
Associations and advocacy/ interest groups
5.3% 19.7% 43.9% 17.4% 6.8% 4.5% 2.3% 24.2%
18
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
Survey Responses on the Most Effective Mechanisms for Science-Policy Engagement
Responses to the question about the most effective mechanisms
for S&T policy engagement highlighted traditional connection
routes in both high/middle-income and lower-income countries.
Advisory boards and panels or committees were ranked highest,
with science-policy dialogue meetings ranked second and chief
scientists/science advisors ranked third. Traditional mechanisms
such as advisory boards or committees and science-policy
conferences and meetings are common in both well-resourced
and lower-income countries.
The immersive mechanisms of fellowships, internships and
pairing schemes, and science policy professional development
resources were noted mainly in higher-income countries. More
than 75 percent of the mechanisms identified in the landscape
analysis are located in the United States alone.
S&T Policy Engagement Enablers and BarriersSurvey respondents were asked to select the top three factors
that enable or hinder S&T policy engagement in their countries or
regions. Twelve factors were presented, drawn from the common
views gathered throughout discussions and consultations.
Respondents also were able to provide additional factors and
open-ended answers.
Respondents from lower-income countries ranked personal
connections as more important than formal institutions,
especially boundary-spanning entities such as scientific societies,
national academies, and advocacy organizations. This view
may owe to the relative dearth of boundary-spanning formal
institutions in limited-resource countries (or institutions that
are ceremonial but not staffed to carry out independent work)
compared to higher-resource countries.
The main differences in perceptions were found between
academic respondents and government respondents. The
respondents from academia and from government (who
provided more than 75 percent of the survey responses) held
a common view on the two highest-ranked factors supporting
S&T policy engagement: (1) adequate demand from the policy
side and (2) political will and trust. The differing perspective
on the third factor from the academic side was the importance
of personal connections, whereas government respondents
considered adequate funding to be the third factor for successful
engagement. This latter view may owe to the finding that
governments directly support the majority of science-policy
connection mechanisms identified.
Similarly, respondents from academia and from government
held a common view on the two highest-ranked barriers: (1)
lack of demand from the policy side and (2) lack of political
will and trust. The differing perspective on the third factor
from the academic side was lack of training of scientists and
engineers in policy, acknowledging weakness in adequately
preparing students and faculty within the university structure
to successfully engage with policy. The government view of
academic culture as the third factor corroborates the challenge of
academia not incentivizing or rewarding policy engagement.
The alignment in perspective on the most significant impediments
presents an important point of convergence for collaboration to
address them.
Other
Internship programs
Science policy professional development
Fellowship programs
Scientists-policymakerspairing schemes
Chief Scientists / Science Advisors
Science-policy dialogue meetings
Advisory boards, panels or committees 64%
56
40
36
36
34
23
14
19
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
Perceptions on Factors that Enable and Hinder Connections Between Scientists and Policy
Enablers Rank Barriers
Adequate demand from the policy side 1 Lack of demand from the policy side
Political will and trust 2 Lack of political will and trust
Personal connections 3 Lack of training of scientists and engineers in policy
Adequate supply from the scientific and engineering communities 4 Academic culture
Existence of academies of sciences or scientific associations 5 Poor management and administration of mechanisms
Training of scientists and engineers in policy 6 Lack of awareness about existing mechanisms
Funding 7 Lack of funding
Academic culture 8 Unsustainability of mechanisms
Management and administration of mechanisms 9 Lack of supply from the scientific and engineering communities
Awareness about existing mechanisms 10 Personal connections
Sustainability of mechanisms 11 Lack of academies of sciences or scientific associations
Human resources laws and regulations 12 Human resources laws and regulations
21
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
CHAPTER 3. A TYPOLOGY OF IMMERSIVE CONNECTION MECHANISMS Fellowships, Internships, Pairing Schemes, Details and Rotations
The landscape analysis focused on mechanisms engaging
scientists in policymaking through embedded experiences either
in government structures or at external or independent bodies,
such as academies of sciences and scientific societies. This
chapter provides an overview of four main immersive models—
fellowships, internships, pairing schemes, and details and
rotations—which are derived from more than 150 science-policy
connection programs identified around the world. As already
noted, more than 75 percent of the mechanisms catalogued
operate in the United States, and the majority of the other 25
percent are in Europe.
Representative examples of each immersive model are presented
below. The featured mechanisms have operated for a minimum
of three years. Details were drawn directly from program
administrators or participants, websites, and the landscape
analysis survey on detailed mechanisms.
Fellowships:
long-term programs focused on postdoctoral level and
professionals
AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships, U.S.
Mimshak Science and Policy Fellowships, Israel
ASEAN-U.S. Science and Technology Fellowships,
Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
Internships:
short-term programs focused on students
Christine Mirzayan Science & Technology Policy Graduate
Fellowships, U.S.
POST Fellowships, U.K.
Pairing Schemes:
policymaker–scientist matches and shadowing programs
European Parliament MEP-Scientist Pairing Scheme, EU
Pairing Scheme, Royal Society, U.K.
Details and Rotations:
policymakers in academia and scientist placements in
government
CSaP Government Secondments, U.K.
Intergovernmental Personnel Act, U.S.
Benefits and challenges of the four models are summarized in
charts at the end of this chapter. The full list of mechanisms
compiled through the landscape analysis is provided in
Appendix A. It is not meant to be a comprehensive catalogue
of every program in existence, but it provides a broad range of
mechanisms operating around the world.
FellowshipsMechanisms categorized in this model are broadly defined as
being focused mainly on postdoctoral and professional career
stages, rather than students, and longer-term experiences of
a year or more, full time. Participants are typically designated
annually via competitive selection processes based on specific
eligibility requirements with regard to the thematic focus, career
level, disciplinary scope, or assignments involved. The majority
of fellowship programs catalogued have nationality requirements
for reasons of security clearances and regulations or labor laws
governing the placement processes.
Some programs have broad, multidisciplinary agendas while
others are targeted to specific priorities for a specific state,
country, or region, such as health, environment, security, or big
data. Some fellowships are targeted to bring specific technical
and scientific expertise to decision makers, while others are
structured to allow contribution of scientific knowledge and skills
broadly to policy planning, development, enactment, funding,
implementation, and evaluation.
Sponsoring entities include federal agencies, scientific
societies, NGOs, private foundations, and industry partners. Of
the fellowships identified in the landscape analysis, most are
administered by independent organizations, such as academies
of sciences or scientific societies (even if sponsored by the
government). This separation of program administration and
hosting roles, in many cases, helps ensure compliance with legal
and ethical frameworks and regulations.
In the embedded experience, fellows learn the inner workings
of the policy-making processes. Upon completion, fellows may
return to the sector or setting they came from, or apply their
freshly acquired knowledge, skills, and networks in new arenas.
22
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
The three fellowship case summaries present:
1. A long-standing U.S. federal government-focused
program that engages scientists and engineers (currently
U.S. citizens only) from a wide range of disciplines,
backgrounds, and career stages with a broad science policy
focus, administered by a scientific society and supported
primarily with U.S. federal government funding.
2. A decade-old thematically focused (environment-related)
program in Israel targeted to early career participants,
administered by a scientific society in partnership with a
university and supported primarily with foundation funding.
3. A supranational program for ASEAN member states, targeted
to early and mid-career scientists with annual thematic foci
and an emphasis on science diplomacy, administered by the
ASEAN Secretariat and supported by a foreign government
international development agency (USAID).
FELLOWSHIPS CASE 1:
AAAS S&T Policy Fellowships, U.S.
http://www.aaas.org/program/science-technology-policy-
fellowships
Mission, Objectives, and Impact Strategy: The AAAS Science &
Technology Policy Fellowships (STPF) program connects science
with policy and fosters a network of science and engineering
leaders who understand government and policymaking, and are
prepared to develop and execute solutions to address societal
challenges. The program is operated by AAAS as part of its
mandate to “advance science and serve society.” The program’s
aim is to foster scientifically informed, evidence-based policy and
practice by involving scientists and engineers from a broad range
of disciplines, backgrounds, and career stages to contribute
their knowledge and analytical skills to (1) learn firsthand about
policymaking and implementation at the federal level and (2)
build leadership for a strong S&T enterprise that benefits society.
Funding: U.S. federal grants and contracts for the majority of
fellowships, which are in the executive branch of government.
Fellowships in the legislative branch, the U.S. Congress, are
sponsored by AAAS directly (two fellowships) and more than 30
partner scientific and engineering societies that recruit, select,
and sponsor their own fellows to participate in the annual STPF
congressional cohort. Private foundation funding supports
several fellowship slots, including placements in the judicial
branch.
Number of Fellows: Approximately 175 per year: 140 executive
branch, 1 judicial branch, and more than 30 in the legislative
branch. STPF allows up to 12-month renewal for fellowships in
the executive branch. Approximately 100 fellows renew yearly,
resulting in annual classes of roughly 275 fellows.
Disciplinary Scope: All fields of science, including behavioral
and social sciences, medicine, and all fields of engineering.
Career Stage: Postdoctoral—from recent doctorate recipients to
mid- and senior-career scientists and engineers. The program also
accepts candidates with a master’s in engineering with additional
professional engineering experience.
Duration: One year (September through August), full time.
Geographic Scope: U.S. federal policy, which includes
assignments with both domestic and international focus.
23
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
Summary: Considered the first program of embedded S&T policy
fellowships, the STPF program started in 1973, providing yearlong
experiential-learning and civic-engagement opportunities that
offered scientists and engineers the tools to better apply and
communicate science within a policy context. The program began
with seven fellows placed in the U.S. Congress, sponsored by
four scientific and engineering societies. Placements in the
executive branch started in 1980, with the first assignments at
the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of
State. Fellowships in the judicial branch were launched in 2014
with placements at the Federal Judicial Center. Over four decades,
the STPF has placed fellows in more than 50 congressional offices
and committees and more than 25 government agencies, and
STPF has partnered with nearly 60 scientific and engineering
sponsoring societies. There are now more than 3,000 STPF
alumni. Two alumni fellowship programs operate with placements
in U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) overseas
missions and at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The success
and growth of the program has inspired other institutions to
establish their own programs (see “Other Resources,”).
The STPF was created and continues to be operated by AAAS, an
international scientific society (and the publisher of this report).
The focus is to cultivate policy-savvy scientists and engineers
by developing their ability to effectively inform individuals and
institutions that influence and determine policies, regulations,
and funding. The STPF, as noted, places fellows in the three
branches of U.S. government for one-year assignments;
executive branch fellowships may be renewed for up to 12
months. Participant selection is conducted through a competitive
three-step evaluation process involving independent selection
panels. A comprehensive professional development program
augments immersive learning, beginning with a two-week
orientation and continuing with monthly training in three learning
tracks: policy, leadership, and communication. Thematic affinity
groups are supported by AAAS to network, share resources,
and self-organize learning experiences ranging from speaker
presentations to tours (e.g., of government facilities, museum
exhibits) to multi-day symposia.
Participants transition and evolve into positions across academia,
government, nonprofits, and industry to serve the nation and
citizens around the world. Alumni carry into their future pursuits
a deep understanding of U.S. government programs and initiatives
and the many factors affecting policy. The program does not
articulate any specific intention for fellows to pursue future
government employment, although many do. In the immediate
years following the fellowship, approximately 40–50 percent
of fellows continue to work in the policy arena (local, state,
national, and international, in government or nongovernment
policy positions), 20–25 percent return to academia, and
another 20–25 percent use the experience as a door to new
opportunities in nonprofits, foundations, and the private sector.
Many fellows who have returned to academia report incorporating
modules on policy and communicating science to nonscientists
into their teaching. They also indicate that their research is more
focused on addressing policy challenges. Those who transition
into other sectors commonly take leadership roles applying and
communicating science broadly.
Alumni feedback attests that the experience enhances their ability
to engage more effectively on a broad spectrum of issues with a
range of audiences. Fellows’ supervisors also affirm the value of
contributions to host offices. STPF alumni have gained experience
to comprehend the critical importance of research, applied
science, and outreach that address societal challenges, support
public policy, and contribute to the well-being of the nation and
citizens around the world. Current and future cohorts of fellows
constitute a growing network of STEM leaders to help improve
policy outcomes and to mentor new generations of scientists
and engineers on the skills to communicate and apply science to
support improved policy.
The most important lesson I learned during my fellowship year
was that the capabilities that brought me success as a university instructor and bench scientist were, in fact, applicable to other arenas. Gathering, analyzing, and organizing information in ways that allow you to communicate with different audiences are immensely valuable skills…. I became less of a reductionist and began thinking more broadly. I learned the importance of many scientific disciplines in government policy.”
Dr. Deborah Olster, STPF alumna, now senior advisor in the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research at the National Institutes of Health
24
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
Other Resources: Nationally and internationally, a number of
programs are modeled on the AAAS S&T Policy Fellowships and
adapted to the specific aims, cultural and political contexts, and
characteristics of their own respective situations. These include:
BSCES Legislative Fellows Program,
Massachusetts, U.S., started 2001
Stiftung Wissenschaftliche Politikstipendien,
Switzerland, started 2002
Jefferson Science Fellowship Program, U.S., started 2004
Health and Aging Policy Fellows Program, U.S., started 2008
Hellman Fellowship in Science and Technology Policy,
U.S., started 2009
California Science and Technology Policy Fellows Program,
California, U.S., started 2009
Mimshak Science and Policy Fellowships Program,
Israel, started 2011 (detailed in next case summary)
Mellon/ACLS Public Fellows Program, U.S., started 2011
ASEAN-U.S. Science and Technology Fellowships,
ASEAN region, started 2014 (detailed in third case summary)
Canadian Science Policy Fellowships, Canada, started 2016
Although not directly embedded in government, some
professional scientific societies in the United States offer science
policy fellowships within their government relations or public
affairs offices that provide valuable immersive experiences
from a government affairs perspective. Fellows participate in
research, communications, and advocacy activities including
attending meetings and hearings on Capitol Hill, agency briefings,
seminars, and coalition sessions. One example is the American
Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Science Policy
Fellowships. This and other mechanisms catalogued via the
international landscape analysis are listed in Appendix A.
Other resources of note are: AAAS Center of Science, Policy, and Society Programs
https://www.aaas.org/program/center-science-policy-and-
society-programs
American Political Science Association Congressional Fellowships
http://www.apsanet.org/cfp
ESEP–Engaging Scientists & Engineers in Policy
http://science-engage.org/index.html
Elements of a Successful Science and Technology Policy
Fellowship Program for State Legislatures
California Council on Science & Technology, January 2016
http://fellows.ccst.us/documents/Elements_2016.pdf
Evidence-Based Policymaking Collaborative
http://www.evidencecollaborative.org
UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST)
Academic Fellowships
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/offices/
bicameral/post/fellowships/parliamentary-academic-fellowship-
scheme
Results for America
http://results4america.org
STPF Partner Societies
https://www.aaas.org/page/stpf/partner-societies-st-policy-
fellowships
Strengthening the Role of Universities in National Science
Policymaking
University of Michigan, February 2016
http://research.umich.edu/sites/default/files/resource-
download/wiesnersymposium2015.pdf
25
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
FELLOWSHIPS CASE 2:
Mimshak Science and Policy Fellowships Program, Israel
http://www.mimshak.org.il/en
Mission, Objectives, and Impact Strategy: Mimshak is
dedicated to improving cooperation and promoting dialogue
between the scientific community and policymakers in Israel.
The program aims to strengthen the scientific knowledge that
informs Israel’s environmental public policy and to integrate this
knowledge into policy-making processes in various government
institutions. The program places researchers, scientists, and
environmental experts to serve as advisors to senior government
officials.
Funding: Yad Hanadiv Foundation Environment Programme
Number of Fellows: 7–12 per year
Disciplinary Scope: Environmental-related fields
Career Stage: Early career—in general, no more than five years
since completion of doctoral studies or postdoctoral appointment
Duration: One year
Geographic Scope: Israel
Summary: With initiative and funding from the Yad Hanadiv
Foundation, the Mimshak Fellowships Program was created in
2011. It was established with the Israel Society of Ecology and
Environmental Sciences (ISEES), where it is administered, in
partnership with the School of Government and Policy at Tel Aviv
University and the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.
The Mimshak Fellowships are aimed at strengthening connections
between science and environmental policy, enabling scientists
to learn and contribute to the mechanisms of policymaking in
Israel, increasing cooperation among stakeholders, and promoting
evidence-based problem-solving for 21-century challenges to
improve the quality of life in Israel. Fellows are recruited annually
for the yearlong fellowship. They spend four days per week
embedded in government offices with an assigned mentor,
and one day per week dedicated to study and training at ISEES
headquarters. The participating ministries in the Mimshak Program
have included the Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministries of
Economy, Interior, Environment, Agriculture, Health, and Energy.
The training program21 includes familiarization with the public
arena and the decision-making processes in the government,
with content encompassing law, economics, public planning, and
environmental theory. The program brings fellows into contact
with key persons in the public sphere through networking events
and field trips. Furthermore, fellows participate in workshops for
developing personal and professional skills. The professional
development curriculum includes training in presentation, public
speaking, effective communication, media training, negotiation,
and writing press releases and policy papers. Fellows also receive
orientation on the cultural transition entailed in integrating
into government offices, on building a personal vision, and on
preparation, through career sessions, for working in the public
and private sectors after the fellowship.
The program provides unparalleled exposure to
influential people, institutions, government agencies, and companies in Israel, allowing fellows to explore and map out the full range of career options they can pursue with a scientific PhD upon completion of the program.”
Amir Fink, co-director, Mimshak Science and Policy Fellowships Program
The program does not entail a designated path to government
employment because such employment is subject to Israel’s
Mandatory Tenders Law and Civil Service Commission directives.
However, some fellows have been hired into the civil service upon
completion of the program, as the experience positions them well
to demonstrate familiarity with the public sector while having
expanded their professional networks.
Other Resources (with an environmental focus or theme):Yad Hanadiv Environment Programme
http://www.yadhanadiv.org.il/programme/environment
COMPASS
http://www.compassonline.org
John A. Knauss Marine Policy Fellowship
http://seagrant.noaa.gov/FundingFellowships/
KnaussFellowship.aspx
Leopold Leadership Program
https://leopoldleadership.stanford.edu
26
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
FELLOWSHIPS CASE 3:
ASEAN-U.S. Science and Technology Fellowship Program, ASEAN Region
https://www.usaid.gov/asia-regional/documents/asean-us-
science-and-technology-fellowship
Mission, Objectives, and Impact Strategy: The goal of the
ASEAN-U.S. Science and Technology Fellowship program is to
strengthen science-based policymaking in the region by giving
scientists living in the ASEAN region the tools to take a more
prominent role in their respective countries’ efforts to integrate
into the ASEAN community. Fellows spend one year embedded in
a government ministry or agency in one of three ASEAN strategic-
priority areas: sustainable energy, climate change and science, or
technology and innovation policy.
Funding: USAID and U.S. mission to ASEAN through the ASEAN-
U.S. Partnership for Good Governance, Equitable and Sustainable
Development and Security (PROGRESS).
Number of Fellows: Approximately 15 annually
Disciplinary Scope: Broad, pertaining to annual thematic focus
Career Stage: Early career scientists with doctoral degrees
Duration: One year
Geographic Scope: ASEAN member states
Summary: The ASEAN-U.S. Science and Technology Fellowship
program was launched in 2014 by ASEAN with support from
USAID and the U.S. mission to ASEAN. The program places
early career scientists in government ministries and agencies
of ASEAN member states to leverage the potential of science
and technology to increase regional competitiveness, improve
resource management, and enhance the lives of the region’s
citizens. In its first year, the program supported seven fellows from
Indonesia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, who
contributed their knowledge and analytical skills to national-level
S&T ministries while learning about the process of policymaking
and implementation. Based on the success of the pilot year, the
program was expanded to include 14 fellows, with the important
update that fellows were placed in sectoral or line ministries
(e.g., ministry of health, ministry of environment)—rather than
a designated science ministry—to provide them with increased
technical capacity to support science-based policy decisions.
The thematic priorities for the fellowship also have evolved in
accordance with both the U.S. and ASEAN strategic priorities.
The program was born out of the recognition that few
nongovernmental scientists in the region are routinely consulted
in policy decisions, and that scientists generally have a limited
understanding of the government decision-making process. It
is the first regional mechanism of its kind, seeking to foster and
institutionalize a culture of science-based policymaking at the
regional level by providing opportunities for policymakers and
scientists in ASEAN countries to learn from one another and
promote regional collaboration and integration.
Fellows build capacity through the daily learning in their
assignments and through mentoring, skills training workshops,
and networking at high-level regional events. These opportunities
help fellows to bridge the science-to-policy gap at the national
and regional levels and contribute to the integration of ASEAN
member states by tackling shared science-based challenges
collectively.
The newly acquired understanding of policy and government
decision-making processes leads to a variety of professional
opportunities and career directions. In the long term, the
program aims to build a regional network of scientists to facilitate
knowledge sharing and contribute the best available evidence to
inform policy decisions.
Other Resources:ASEAN–Association of Southeast Asian Nations
http://asean.org
ASEAN Plan of Action on Science, Technology and Innovation
(APASTI) 2016–2025
http://www.mih.gov.kh/File/UploadedFiles/7_6_2016_3_50_0.pdf
InnovASEAN blog
https://blogs.usembassy.gov/asean
ICSU–International Council for Science, Science for Policy
http://www.icsu.org/what-we-do/@@category_search?path=/
icsu/what-we-do&Subject:list=Science for Policy
INGSA–International Network for Government Science Advice
http://www.ingsa.org
Scientific Support for Sustainable Development Policies: A
Typology of Science–Policy Interfaces with Case Studies
http://www.sitra.fi/julkaisut/Selvityksi%C3%A4-sarja/
Selvityksia118.pdf
The Future of Scientific Advice to the United Nations
UNESCO, September 2016
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002458/245801e.pdf
27
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
InternshipsMechanisms categorized in the internship model are broadly
defined as focused on students, in most cases at the graduate
level and primarily enrolled in STEM degree programs. An
internship provides an interlude in a policy-focused setting; these
programs typically last from weeks up to six months, and afford
students a valuable opportunity to (1) learn more about the policy
world during their formative years, (2) observe the application
of science to policy, and (3) gauge their interest in pursuing
policy-focused career paths. Using this lens, programs with the
title “fellowship” that are student-focused and short-term are
categorized under “internships.”
As with fellowships, internship participants are normally chosen
via competitive selection systems based on specific eligibility
requirements with regard to the topical focus, disciplinary scope,
or assignments involved. Science policy internships also range
from broad, multidisciplinary agendas to targeted themes.
They encompass both salaried and volunteer arrangements,
generally require little or no previous experience in policy,
and tend to be less strict about nationality requirements than
fellowships or details and rotations. Internships are offered at
and funded by government entities and many other stakeholders
in the science policy landscape, including universities, scientific
societies, academies of sciences, think tanks, advocacy
organizations, and industry.
In the embedded experience, interns likewise have the
opportunity to learn the procedures, protocols, and politics
associated with the policy and decision-making processes.
Activities vary depending on the assignment but are generally
more focused on learning than final products.
The two case summaries present:
1. A program administered and supported by the U.S. National
Academies for nearly two decades that provides three-month
immersive experiences within the organization for graduate
students from a broad range of disciplines.
2. An established program administered and supported by the
U.K. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology that
offers three-month experiential opportunities in Parliament
for doctoral students.
28
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
INTERNSHIPS CASE 1:
Christine Mirzayan Science & Technology Policy Graduate Fellowship Program, U.S.
https://www.usaid.gov/asia-regional/documents/asean-us-
science-and-technology-fellowship
Mission, Objectives, and Impact Strategy: The Christine
Mirzayan Science & Technology Policy Graduate Fellowships
are designed to engage early career professionals in the
analytical processes that inform U.S. science and technology
policy. Through three-month, full-time assignments to support
production of policy reports at the National Academies of
Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Washington, D.C., fellows
obtain essential skills and knowledge about the intersection of
science and policy.
Funding: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine (NAS)
Number of Fellows: Approximately 20
Disciplinary Scope: STEM fields, business, and law
Career Stage: Graduate students and postdoctoral students
within five years after completion of degree
Duration: Three months
Geographic Scope: U.S. assignments and policy focus, many
with international dimensions
Summary: Now in its 19th year, the program engages participants
in National Academies’ processes to develop, produce, and
promote policy reports for U.S. government and nongovernmental
clients. Selected fellows from around the world (applicants must
hold a pertinent visa) become part of an Academies’ committee,
board, or unit, where they are assigned to a mentor and learn
about the analytical deliberations that inform U.S. science and
technology policy at the federal, state, and local levels. Fellows
obtain a firm grasp of the role of S&T in decision making while
broadening awareness of employment opportunities outside
academia.
Orientation sessions cover how the Academies operate and the
fundamentals of science and technology policy. Throughout the
fellowship participants also learn from presentations about other
stakeholders that influence, make, or report on science and
technology policy. They are encouraged to attend congressional
hearings, seminars at think tanks, and briefings at federal
agencies.
Fellows are supported to network with alumni who hold positions
in science policy, including on congressional committees, and
with federal agencies, foreign governments, international
institutions such as the European Union and World Bank, as well
as universities, and the private sector.
Other Resources: Australian Academy of Science Policy Internships
https://www.science.org.au/files/userfiles/about/Academy%20
of%20Science%20Policy%20Internship%20Opportunity%20
starting%202017.pdf
ELISS–Emerging Leaders in Science & Society
http://elissfellows.org
Hertog Foundation Fellowships
https://hertogfoundation.org/our-programs
Research!America
http://www.researchamerica.org
29
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
INTERNSHIPS CASE 2:
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) Fellowships, U.K.
http://www.parliament.uk/postfellowships
Mission, Objectives, and Impact Strategy: The U.K.
Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology is the internal
source of scientific advice in the U.K. Parliament. POST runs
several programs in partnership with the country’s research
councils, learned societies, and charities, through which PhD
students are sponsored to spend approximately three months
immersed in a policy-focused assignment. Some fellowships are
also open to postdoctoral researchers.
Funding: The U.K. Parliament provides infrastructure support
(office space, desk, technology, human resources, and costs for
research such as travel and conference fees) along with training,
supervision, and access. Each fellow’s institution provides the
three-month stipend and either regular travel to London or
accommodation in London.
Number of Fellows: Approximately 35
Disciplinary Scope: STEM fields, including social sciences
Career Stage: Doctoral students
Duration: Three months
Geographic Scope: U.K. assignments and policy focus, many
with international dimensions
Summary: POST runs fellowship schemes that enable doctoral
students to spend time immersed in the office’s activities. In
addition, POST places some fellows with the Research Libraries
U.K., and select committees of both houses of Parliament.
The majority who are placed with POST will research, write,
and publish a “POSTnote”—a four-page briefing paper that
summarizes research evidence and places it in a policy
context for parliamentary use. All POSTnotes are circulated to
parliamentarians, made available around the parliamentary
estate (both on release and to match topical parliamentary
activity) and are published online, freely available to all, including
the public. Many POST fellows help organize briefing breakfasts,
seminars, workshops, and conferences at which academic
experts engage directly with parliamentarians to explore policy-
relevant evidence and discuss solutions to policy problems.
Other Resources: Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering (ATSE)
Science and Technology Policy Graduate Internships
https://www.atse.org.au/content/news/science-and-technology-
policy-graduate-internship.aspx
Center for Science and Policy (CSaP), University of Cambridge,
Policy Internships, U.K.
http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/news/article-understanding-needs-
policy-makers
National Environment Research Council (NERC), Research Council
Policy Internships Scheme, U.K.
http://www.nerc.ac.uk/funding/available/postgrad/advanced/
policy-interns
Research Councils recognize that when they’re training PhD
students, not all of them will become academics, and the ones who do need to have policy understanding. It’s beholden on them to train their PhD candidates, so they run competitions to identify a few of their best who they fund to receive training and experience in a POST fellowship.”
Chris Tyler, director of the U.K. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology
30
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
Pairing SchemesPairing schemes connect scientists and engineers with
members of parliament (MPs), legislators, or civil servants to
experience each other’s worlds. Participants are predominantly
from academia. Pairing schemes aim to promote a culture of
science-based policymaking in parliaments, facilitate the entry
of scientific advice into legislatures, and help create lasting
links and mutual understanding between scientists and MPs
or legislators. These programs typically require only a few days
of commitment and are ideally suited for busy academics and
policymakers who lack the time for more intensive or longer
experiences.
The two case summaries present:
1. An established program administered and supported by
the U.K. Royal Society offering one-week experiential
opportunities for scientists to pair with and shadow members
of parliament and some civil service posts and, in turn, for
MPs and civil servants to experience the academic research
environment.
2. A program administered and supported by the European
Union that provides one-week immersive opportunities for
scientists from a broad range of disciplines and members of
the European Parliament to engage in mutual learning about
each other’s worlds.
PAIRING SCHEME CASE 1:
Royal Society Pairing Scheme, U.K.
https://royalsociety.org/grants-schemes-awards/pairing-scheme
Mission, Objectives, and Impact Strategy: The Royal Society
selects 30 scientists every year to spend a week in Westminster
learning how Parliament works by shadowing a partner MP or
senior civil servant. A reciprocal visit takes place later when MPs
visit the research institutions. This scheme gives policymakers
an opportunity to better understand the use of evidence in
policymaking, and provides scientists with direct insight into
how policy develops, how research findings can help inform
policymaking, and an overall enhanced understanding of how
they can get involved.
Funding: Royal Society
Number of Pairs: 30
Disciplinary Scope: STEM fields
Career Stage: Scientists with at least two years of postdoctoral
research experience, matched with MPs
Duration: One week for scientists in Parliament, and up to one
week for MPs and civil servants in the academic setting
Summary: The scheme begins with a “Week in Westminster,”
during which the pairs first meet. Over this week, the scientists
take part in workshops, hear from invited speakers, and spend
two days in their shadowing role. After this first week, the
parliamentarians and civil servants have their turn to gain insight
into the world of research, undertaking reciprocal visits at their
respective pairs’ academic institutions.
Other Resources: Science Meets Parliament, Australia
http://scienceandtechnologyaustralia.org.au/focus-on/science-
meets-parliament-2016
The Society of Scientists and Parliament Members TUTKAS,
Finland
https://www.eduskunta.fi/EN/kansanedustajat/verkostot/
Pages/default.aspx
University College of London Public Policy placements, U.K.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/public-policy/for-researchers/policy-
placements
The fellowship provided an important stimulus for the
development of a behavioural science checklist, which enables risk holders in government to incorporate behavioural science advice into their emergency planning.”
Elizabeth Surkovic, Government Office for Science, CSaP Policy Fellowship participant
31
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
PAIRING SCHEME CASE 2:
European Parliament MEP-Scientist Pairing Scheme, EU
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/cms/home/activities/
mepscientist
Mission, Objectives, and Impact Strategy: Jointly organized and
managed by the Science and Technology Options Assessment
at the European Parliament and the European Commission,
these schemes pair Members of European Parliament (MEPs)
with scientists to build relationships through experiencing each
other’s professional world and day-to-day activities.
Funding: European Union
Number of Pairs: 16
Career Stage: Mid- to late-career scientists, matched with
members of the EU Parliament
Duration: One week for scientists in the European Parliament and
optional follow-up visits for MEPs to see their paired scientists at
their research institutions.
Summary: To support the development of relationships between
MEPs and scientists, the European Parliament operates MEP-
Scientist Pairings. Through their introduction to a network of
scientists and researchers, MEPs gain an enhanced awareness
of scientific processes and discovery, along with a better
understanding of the scientists’ points of view on policy issues.
Scientists learn how to interact effectively with politicians and
how to proactively inform them in fields of mutual interest,
as well as contribute to the dissemination of information to
universities and other scientific institutions on the structure and
implementation of relevant European policies and programs.
Scientists are invited to Brussels to shadow and assist MEPs
in their daily political activities, allowing them to observe EU
science, technology, and research policy players in action. As a
follow-up, the pairs are encouraged to collaborate in organizing
an event, with a European dimension, on a topic of their choice.
Other Resources: Ambassadors for Science, Spain
https://www.fecyt.es/en/noticia/first-shadowing-programme-
between-scientists-and-diplomats-starts-london
CSaP Policy Fellowships Programme, Center for Science and
Policy at the University of Cambridge, U.K.
http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/policy-fellowships/policy-fellows
Members of Parliament–Members of the Academy of Sciences–
Young Researchers, France
http://www.academie-sciences.fr/archivage_site/en/pairing.htm
32
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
Details and Rotations The details and rotations addressed in this section generally
bring STEM professionals into temporary full-time government
employment for periods of two to four years. This period
provides an opportunity to contribute expertise on specific
issues or projects on a longer-term basis while learning about
policymaking, and to introduce STEM professionals to civil
service roles and cultivate leadership for career employment.
The programs target the early to senior career stages.
Participants are mainly from academia but also from the
nonprofit and private sectors.
Shorter-term opportunities also exist in government settings for
civil servants to experience new environments and processes,
become skilled in different issue areas, and expand their
networks, and for STEM professionals from sectors outside
government to engage in short-term assignments.
The two case summaries present:
1. A U.K. government leadership development initiative offering
four-year full-time civil service training opportunities for
STEM professionals with master’s and doctoral degrees.
2. An established U.S. government program that augments
executive branch needs for specialized staffing through
temporary two- to four-year full-time government assignments.
DETAILS AND ROTATIONS CASE STUDY 1:
Civil Service Fast Stream, U.K.
https://www.faststream.gov.uk/science-engineering
Mission, Objectives, and Impact Strategy: To ensure that
the best science and engineering advice is brought to bear on
government policy and decision making, the Fast Stream program
recruits doctoral and master’s graduates in STEM disciplines into
the civil service for a four-year training program. Fast Streamers
work on issues ranging from climate change and bioscience policy
to defense technology, transport innovation, and food production.
Funding: U.K. government
Number of Participants: Ranges depending on participating
ministries, agencies, and other placement opportunities
Career Stage: Primarily early career doctoral-level scientists
Summary: Fast Streamers take on a range of roles across the
U.K. Civil Service—some with a substantial policy element, others
more technical in nature—that augment science and engineering
expertise in the civil service, and provide access to a wide range
of potential career pathways. Participants apply specialist skills
and knowledge to the development and application of policies
and undertake systems-level analysis. They receive core training,
including a four-day induction program, training courses, and
online education.
In the initial year, participants complete a posting in the civil
service, working with a chief scientific advisor or providing expert
advice and analysis to inform a specific area of policy. The second
year entails two six-month rotations, including one in the wider
public sector, the private sector, or overseas in order to gain
new perspectives to inform policymaking. After a third yearlong
posting back in the civil service, Fast Streamers take on a more
specialized or technical role. The final year is spent in a policy
or operational delivery role in a technical environment. Upon
completing the Fast Stream program, participants are eligible for
an array of career options within the civil service.
Other Resources: University College London European Institute Scientist
Secondments, U.K., http://www.ucl.ac.uk/european-institute/
news-repository/pg-secondments
Leadership and Talent Development Programmes,
Government Office for Science, U.K.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/
attachment_data/file/312972/14-797-gse-training1.pdf
33
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
DETAILS AND ROTATIONS CASE STUDY 2:
Intergovernmental Personnel Act, U.S.
https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/hiring-information/
intergovernment-personnel-act
Mission, Objectives, and Impact Strategy: The Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) Mobility Program and
Visiting Scientist Appointments allow the temporary assignment
of personnel between the federal government and state and local
governments, colleges, and universities without loss of employee
rights and benefits. The goal is to facilitate the movement
of employees to serve a public purpose. Many assignments
are specific to augmenting STEM capabilities within the U.S.
government.
Number of Participants: Varies annually across federal agencies
Career Stage: Typically mid- to senior-career tenured-faculty
scientists
Summary: Assignments to or from state and local governments,
institutions of higher education, and other eligible organizations
are intended to facilitate cooperation between the federal
government and nonfederal entities through the temporary
assignment of skilled personnel. Mobility assignments are used
in part to assist in the transfer and use of new technologies and
approaches for solving governmental problems, and to provide
program and developmental experience that will enhance the
assignee’s performance in his or her regular job.
For example, the National Science Foundation (NSF) supplies
approximately a third of its workforce of program managers
through the IPA. Known as “rotators” at the NSF, these temporary
program managers are primarily university faculty who serve
for two to four years and maintain their academic affiliation.
They make significant contributions to the NSF, bringing
research expertise and external perspectives. The rotators also
learn in-depth about the federal processes that support basic
research funding and cultivate new networks that enhance their
contributions to their home institutions upon completion of the
government assignment.
Other Resources: Partnership for Public Service Civil Service Fellows Program, U.S.
https://ourpublicservice.org/about-us/civil-service-fellows-
program.php
Civil Service STEM Fellowships and Foreign Affairs Fellowships,
U.S. Department of State
https://careers.state.gov/intern/other-programs/civil-service-
fellowship-programs
Presidential Management Fellows Program, U.S.
https://www.pmf.gov
Visiting Scientist, Engineer or Educator Program,
National Science Foundation, U.S.
https://www.nsf.gov/careers/rotator/vsee.jsp
34
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
Benefits and Challenges of Immersive Science-Policy Engagement MechanismsThe following summary charts of generalized benefits and challenges are for immersive mechanisms within a government setting. These
will be influenced by specific political and cultural circumstances. The benefits and challenges will vary for embedded programs focusing
on policy outside a government setting, such as fellowships and internships within a scientific society or advocacy organization.
COMMON FOR ALL FOUR MODELS
Benefits Challenges
Scientists / Mechanism Administration
• Gain firsthand knowledge of government systems, science funding, and policymaking.
• Learn benefits of and methods to infuse science to support evidence-based policymaking and communicate its importance.
• Foster deep understanding of research relevance to policy and society and facilitate attention to “broader impacts” in funding applications.
• Promote professional development and transferable personal and professional skills for broader career options.
• Develop networks within government and with other scientists engaged in policy.
• Build trust and mutual understanding with policymakers, government staff.
• Allow career enhancement through networking, mentorship, and connections with policymakers and other stakeholders.
• Offer opportunities through alumni networks for collaboration, mentorship, career advancement, and sharing resources beyond the duration of the experience.
• Enhance boundary-spanning capacity.
Policymakers / Government
• Infuse energy, fresh perspectives, and current scientific knowledge into policymaking and implementation.
• Augment scientific capacity of host entities.
• Cultivate culture of evidence-based inquiry and decision making.
• Build trust and mutual understanding with scientists.
• Gain broad network of policy-savvy scientists via participant alumni.
• Recruit future employees and build S&T leadership in civil service through participant exposure to opportunities to contribute.
• Lighten management burden through administration via an external, respected organization, while helping comply with ethical rules and avoid conflicts of interest and concerns about neutrality.
Scientists / Mechanism Administration
• Generally, greater interest than supply of opportunities (demand issue).
• Need to learn to communicate messages succinctly and in a policy framework focusing on constituents.
• Assignments sometimes not sufficiently substantive for degree level or aligned with professional interests or learning goals.
• Need for adjustment to slow progress within hierarchical, bureaucratic systems.
• Frustration when encountering lack of political will to implement evidence-based solutions.
• Lack of incentives, reward systems, and career recognition for policy engagement; in some instances, view of time away from academic pursuits as a distraction or even a failure.
Policymakers / Government
• Lack of awareness of benefits of evidence-based policy, or ideological views that do not embrace science findings.
• Funding generally not sufficient to meet need of government or interest of participants.
• Sustainability through political instability, administration transitions, and competing demands for limited funding.
• Difficulty of quantifying immediate and longer-term contributions to policy process and broader impact, as well as increase in scientific and technical understanding among policymakers.
35
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
FELLOWSHIPS
Benefits Challenges
Scientists
• Facilitate rapid learning and timely inputs to evolving situations through deep integration into day-to-day government operations.
• Foster ability to quickly assess needs, and synthesize and communicate information, from a policy lens on topics beyond area of expertise.
• Promote greater networking opportunities to facilitate transition to policy-oriented roles.
Policymakers / Government
• Generate a culture of inquiry, constructive questioning, and quantitative analysis in government.
• Gain low-cost or free highly educated and skilled participants (if externally sponsored) who are eager to learn and contribute their expertise.
• Enable creative, unconventional problem-solving for policy issues through fellows not indoctrinated in usual government practices.
Scientists
• Inconsistent commitment, time, and capacity across host organization supervisors and mentors.
• Hierarchical government environments and unrealistic expectations for attributable contributions, sometimes causing frustration or disappointment.
• Ambiguous titles within the host organization (e.g., fellow, scholar, specialist), potentially leading to confusion about roles, rank, independence, or neutrality.
• Insufficient instruction on assignment-specific policy instruments and activities, e.g., how to write policy briefs in a particular agency style/protocol.
• Complicated, slow, and inconsistent human resources systems and regulations across government agencies, hindering efficient placements.
• Security clearance requirements for some assignments, potentially causing delays.
• Competition for scientific input with powerful, well-resourced stakeholders (e.g., lobbyists, industry).
Policymakers / Government
• Inconsistent awareness of fellows and their roles and contributions.
• Politicians’ expectations for immediate outcomes vs. longer-term impact and influence.
• Difficulty of successfully matching fellows with host offices/supervisors if fellowship position descriptions and expectations are not clear.
• Compliance with legal, ethics, and lobbying rules and regulations when funding comes from external sources.
• High stipends in some countries (e.g., Switzerland), limiting the number of fellowships available each year and therefore the overall impact.
36
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
INTERNSHIPS
Benefits Challenges
Scientists
• Allow minimal interruptions to pursuit of degree, postdoctoral research due to short-term assignments.
• Offer exposure to policy in early career stage, helping potentially reorient graduate and postgraduate experiences to bridge skills gap for careers at intersection of science and policy.
Policymakers / Government / Host Institution
• Enable training of more participants per year due to shorter duration and generally lower cost.
Scientists
• Less time to establish meaningful relationships with policymakers and experience the full policy development cycle, as a result of short-term assignments.
• Possible perception by academic supervisors of policy engagement as a research distraction or as an expression of lack of interest in research.
• Unpaid status of some internships may tend to favor well-resourced students.
Policymakers / Government / Host Institution
• Requirement for significant time and guidance for early career training from government supervisors/mentors.
• Evaluation of knowledge, skills, and learning objectives in short-term programs, especially if across a spectrum of disciplines.
PAIRING SCHEMES
Benefits Challenges
Scientists / Mechanism Administration
• Mesh well with academic positions due to short-term or part-time commitment.
• Establish relationships with parliamentarians and civil servants.
Policymakers / Civil Servants / Government
• Learn about science behind issues.
• Increase understanding of scientific process and research environment.
• Meet experts who can provide evidence-based inputs.
• Learn how to assess research findings and how scientific results and data may be applied to inform policy decisions.
• Build long-lasting relationships with scientists.
• Network with other policymakers working on similar issues.
Scientists / Mechanism Administration
• Limited opportunity to gain deep insight into policy-making processes due to short-term and part-time experiences.
• Reliance on political will, interest, and time from policymakers.
All Parties
• Competing time demands in short-term or part-time programs, sometimes making it difficult to fully engage.
37
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
DETAILS AND ROTATIONS
Benefits Challenges
Scientists
• Offer generally higher compensation and administrative support.
• Maintain, in some cases, originating-employer affiliation and benefits.
Government
• Allow sustained direct infusion of scientific expertise through longer-term appointments.
Scientists
• Opportunities not well-known within academia.
• Possible conflict of expectations or perceived conflict of interest when maintaining affiliation with originating employer.
Government
• More expensive than shorter-term assignments.
• Overreliance on external supplements of scientific expertise, creating knowledge/talent gaps if funding is reduced or terminated.
39
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
CHAPTER 4. SUCCESSFUL ENGAGEMENT Factors for Effective Initiatives
Chapter 2 presented the general survey results, and chapter 3
highlighted cases and resources gathered from the mechanism
survey. This chapter incorporates broader inputs from the
literature review, research, and international consultations
to present important factors for successful and sustainable
immersive or experiential mechanisms based on lessons learned
and best practices from existing programs around the world.
Factors for Effective InitiativesA key issue for existing efforts is to adequately evaluate and
convey not only short-term outputs and longer-term outcomes
but also broader impact and influence. Understanding return
on investment is important to funding entities, whether they
are government, foundation, NGO, or industry sponsors.
This information is essential for guiding enhancements and
adjustments to mechanisms designed to support productive
science-policy engagement.
For new efforts, it is critical to ensure adequate time to research
needs and determine feasibility, opportunities, and challenges.
This provides a foundation on which to solicit input and engage
necessary stakeholders in order to strategically plan goals
and objectives, with benchmarks for success and evaluation
structures that take advantage of opportunities and address
any barriers. Issues to consider include establishing participant
criteria and selection processes, developing appropriate
operating systems and protocols, securing sufficient initial
funding, promoting widely, and implementing efficiently.
Successful endeavors continuously learn, adapt, and enhance.
Initiatives that falter before they have demonstrated some
success often fail, or struggle to gain the necessary momentum
to grow and prosper to achieve significant impact.
The following elements identified through the landscape
analysis are foundational to successful immersive science-policy
engagement mechanisms (a summary of important elements also
is provided in the accompanying table).
Political/Institutional Support: Well-positioned, respected,
and networked advocates help science-policy engagement
mechanisms launch and thrive. These ambassadors should
be influential and are critical within policy circles, especially
legislatures, parliaments, or government agencies and ministries.
An advisory board of influential thought leaders can facilitate
valuable connections and provide critical insights for success.
Once a mechanism is well established, its alumni participants in
highly visible positions often are among the best champions to
ensure continued support, growth, and prestige.
A demand for scientific input and recognition of its value in policy
are often significant factors for long-term success. Some entities
have a clear mission to conduct or oversee funding for research
and policy analysis and are staffed with scientific professionals
who understand the need for additional inputs and expertise.
Examples in the United States include the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy, the National Science Foundation,
and the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space,
and Technology; and in the U.K., the Parliamentary Office of
Science and Technology.
The January 5, 2017, Exit Memo of the White House Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) highlights “10 Actions
Needed to Foster Continued Federal Innovation,” and second
among them is to “recruit, retain, and empower top S&T talent
in the federal government.”22 As an example, the OSTP itself
has benefited from staff drawn from science-policy connection
programs. In 2016, the OSTP included 16 AAAS Science &
Technology Policy Fellowships alumni among its ranks,
including the first U.S. chief data scientist. Recently launched
U.S. government fellowships and programs are designed to
help achieve this aim, including the Presidential Innovation
Fellowships and the United States Digital Service.
In addition, government bodies with fewer staff or departments
focused on analyzing policy from a science or technology
perspective can be ripe for such input. In some instances,
creating the immersive program cultivates demand from
government entities by first demonstrating the value of direct
engagement by scientists in policy-making environments. An
example is the U.S. Department of State, where a number of
public service fellowship programs have proliferated since the
AAAS STPF program was introduced there in 1980. These include
the William C. Foster Fellows Visiting Scholars Program, the
Franklin Fellows Program, the Jefferson Science Fellowships, and
the Civil Service STEM Fellowships.
40
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
Ultimately, a sense of ownership from the entity benefiting from
the participation of scientists is key; otherwise, mechanisms may
become dispensable. This is especially the case for initiatives
funded externally, such as programs in countries supported by
other governments or remote sponsors, where the effort may
end when external funding ceases if the recipient no longer
fully endorses the project. Selecting a trusted, well-positioned
administrative body within the specific political and cultural
context is critical to helping address this issue.
Broader Impact: Different engagement mechanisms have
their inherent aims; however, if developed well and sustained,
all have an opportunity to yield long-term outcomes beyond
initial contributions to specific policy challenges or immediate
professional development. Many mechanisms focus on
opportunities to apply knowledge to effect positive change, as
well as facilitating professional development to enhance careers.
Most funders, whether public or private, seek broader impacts for
society. In the United States, government investments in research
often have broader impact requirements as a benchmark for
success and among the criteria for continued funding.
Science-policy connection initiatives provide a range of objectives,
including building future leadership for science policy positions
in government, providing career paths beyond academia and
industry, cultivating more effective means of communicating
science, or influencing applied research to address societal
concerns.
Academia benefits from faculty and alumni who are
knowledgeable about the science-funding process and its
leverage points, and can more effectively articulate to funders the
importance of their research and its benefits for society. Scientific
associations thus gain members who are better able to advocate
the role and value of science broadly as well as their specific
discipline. As the ranks of scientists in positions overseeing
funding in government increase—through local, state, or federal
employment, and as elected officials—a significant opportunity
exists to shape the future direction of basic and applied
research to address critical needs, take advantage of emerging
technologies, and cultivate innovation. Industry, in turn, will gain
scientists who understand public-private partnerships and how
regulations are promulgated and influenced.
Effort must be made to frame these outcomes not only to funders
and policymakers but also to universities, industry and other
sectors, the media, and the general public to raise awareness of
the benefits of evidence-based policies and practices, and the
critical role of scientists’ direct engagement to achieve results.
Sustainable Funding: Continuous, stable financial support is
essential for the long-term success and sustainability of science-
policy connection efforts. However, in some situations and
countries, financial support received from outside of government
could violate tax, lobbying, or ethics regulations. External
support for programs engaging non–civil servants in government
could raise political, cultural, or legal conflicts of interest, or
perceptions of undue influence could undermine legitimacy
and credibility. In some contexts, government funding could
be viewed to carry an agenda or political influence that does
not allow unfettered engagement and input. In other cultural
settings, such as in Latin America, where many NGOs and private
foundations are primarily viewed as advocacy organizations,
funding from an NGO source also may not be viewed as credible
or sustainable.
It’s very important to explicitly engage the legislatures. We work
on global change, and the reaction to global change in the first instance very often is legislation. It’s coming down from the global levels and needs to be translated to national levels. So engagement with parliaments is probably more important even than with the executive branch. The advantage is also that government executives live from one minute to the next, not from one election period to the next, and that’s where the parliamentary bodies are very, very important, particularly if you have access to the two houses. We have had more success talking at the parliamentary level than talking at the government level.”
Holm Tiessen, executive director, Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research
41
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
Success stories exist across funding strategies. The AAAS
Science & Technology Policy Fellowships in the executive branch
utilize a strategy that decouples government-agency funding
from the administrative processes organized by AAAS. This
ensures unbiased selection and placement of the fellows in the
federal government. U.S. federal agencies interested in hosting
fellows provide program funding to AAAS, but neither AAAS nor
the agencies specify particular fellows for particular offices.
Following placement interviews, host offices and fellowship
finalists put forward preferences and matches are made based on
this information.
Examples of programs in the U.S. legislative branch funded
by private foundations include the Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation Health Policy Fellows program. In addition, the
Atlantic Philanthropy’s Health and Aging Policy Fellows Program
supports assignments in the U.S. federal executive and legislative
branches, as well as in state and local government.
AAAS S&T Policy Fellowships in the U.S. Congress are sponsored
by individual scientific and engineering societies. The Swiss
Foundation for Science Policy Scholarships are funded by the
Science Policy Scholarships Foundation, created specifically for
this purpose.
The California Science and Technology Policy Fellows Program,
which places fellows in the state’s executive and legislative
branches, is supported by private foundations and corporations.
A 2015 memorandum23 documents the legal and ethics framework
justifying support of the program by external donors and provides
valuable recommendations for establishing similar programs in
other jurisdictions.
The Jefferson Science Fellowship Program, which supports
tenured academics to work in formulating and implementing
U.S. foreign policy and in international development in the
U.S. Department of State and USAID, is administered by the
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and
is supported through a partnership among the U.S. academic
community and the government agencies.
Fellowships funded and operated by governments and research
councils focusing on science-policy engagement and professional
development also thrive. Some of these include the Presidential
Management Fellows Program and the Knauss Marine Policy
Fellowship in the United States, and the POST and Research
Councils fellowships in the U.K..
Think tanks, nongovernmental scientific organizations, and
advocacy groups also fund policy fellowships that place
participants directly in government settings or within their own
policy operation. Examples include the Brookings Institution’s
Legis Congressional Fellowship, the American Astronomical
Society’s John Bahcall Public Policy Fellowship, and the Union of
Concerned Scientists’ Kendall Science Fellows Program.
Meaningful Engagement: The policy realm is new for most
scientists, and according to feedback, pushing outside the
“comfort zone” into policy environments offers deep learning
experiences with lasting results. Well-planned assignments
with support and guidance have been demonstrated to enable
productive learning and contribution.
Engagement opportunities that take advantage of participants’
level of education and fully integrate them into the work of
the office or unit throughout the assignment offer the richest
learning environments, and are often described by participants
as “transformative.” Attentive mentoring from a host entity
supervisor or advisor is a key factor for mutually beneficial and
productive experiences by providing critical counsel, information,
resources, and advice.
Preparation should include a comprehensive orientation to
familiarize participants with politics, processes, procedures,
and protocols in the policy context to which they are assigned
and to network with other participants and key individuals.
These resources serve as a critical component of a successful
and immersive learning experience. Further, regular training and
professional development opportunities aimed at enhancing
skills to span science-policy boundaries can significantly
increase participants’ effectiveness. These may include dialogue
sessions, seminars, workshops, and courses on communicating
with nonscientific stakeholders, covering such topics as framing
messages for policy solutions, building consensus, negotiation,
conflict resolution, project and people management, leadership,
and career exploration.
Some programs conduct orientation and professional
development offerings via internal staff, others with external
trainers or partners, and some with a combination of both.
For example, the Mimshak Fellowships in Israel partners with
the Harold Hartog School of Government and Policy at Tel Aviv
University, and the Empire State Fellows Program in New York
engages the Rockefeller Institute of Government of the State
University of New York to conduct training for their fellows.
42
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
Multi-Perspective Integration: Whether immersive science-
policy engagement mechanisms have a broad focus or a
specific thematic agenda, they benefit from having participants
that represent multiple disciplines, backgrounds, sectors,
geographic regions, genders, and cultural/ethnic perspectives.
This facilitates the inclusion of diverse views to develop
comprehensive, robust solutions to complex policy challenges.
Participants benefit from networking with colleagues across a
wide range of backgrounds, experiences, and sectors to build
relationships for long-term resources and collaborations. While
some initiatives focus on specific career stages, the benefit
of varying career-stage perspectives can still be achieved by
engaging experienced program alumni as well as mentors and
advisors.
Incentives, Compensation, and Support: Although many
scientists in civic engagement activities take the initiative on
a voluntary basis and for altruistic reasons to serve society, it
is essential to facilitate sustained commitment incentives that
recognize and reward such activities. For efforts involving full-
time and longer-term investment of time and effort, adequate
financial compensation and support are essential to attract top-
quality participants and enable their dedicated focus.
This is a particular concern for academic culture, with its primary
focus on publishing, securing grants, and teaching for achieving
tenure, where activities not directly tied to producing research
results are sometimes viewed as a distraction and not linked to
the goal of developing a well-rounded, informed, and engaged
scientist. This challenge was highlighted at the 2015 University
of Michigan national symposium on “Strengthening the Role
of Universities in National Science Policymaking” (Wiesner
Symposium).24 The event’s central theme emphasized that
“campuses must cultivate a culture of public service, encouraging
both faculty and students to become ‘civic scientists.’”
Academics with an understanding of policy, and a related
network of professionals with experience in the field, can
contribute significantly to their institutions through knowledge
of government funding sources and the ability to target research
proposals to government interests and needs. They become
skillful in framing communications to policymakers in order
to garner support for the academic enterprise by conveying
the ways research and innovation contribute to specific
constituencies and the broader economy. This helps policymakers
recognize the critical value universities offer society and
encourage their continuing support. Thus, engagement at the
intersection of science and policy should provide an individual
career boost and provide an institutional asset. Recommendation
no. 5 from the Wiesner Symposium thus states: “Restructure
the faculty evaluation process to explicitly reward science policy
service, outreach and mentoring, and other forms of engagement,
as well as quality of teaching.” Recommendation no. 3 also notes
the need to “create opportunities for students to get involved in
real policy experiences at state and national levels.”
Restructure the faculty evaluation process to explicitly
reward science policy service, outreach and mentoring, and other forms of engagement, as well as quality of teaching.”
Recommendation no. 5 from the Wiesner Symposium: “Strengthening the Role of Universities in National Science Policymaking”, University of Michigan 2015
Appropriate Infrastructure: Organizational infrastructure at the
appropriate scale is necessary to operate well-run, efficient, and
effective programming based on the scope and size of the effort.
The legal frameworks and guidelines to place non–civil servants
in government settings must be in place. Input from the general
survey of the landscape analysis noted that human resources and
recruitment departments in government units in some countries
historically have emphasized requirements for degrees in
humanities, political science, or law for the civil service. While
scientists are often employed as civil servants in government
laboratories, these positions are typically research-focused, with
little connection to policy. The U.K. and the United States have
created pathways for scientists in the civil service with a broad
policy focus. These include the Government Science and
Engineering Profession in the U.K., and the previously mentioned
Presidential Management Fellowships and the Presidential
Innovation Fellowships in the U.S. executive branch of
government.
Most immersive mechanisms identified in the landscape
analysis operate with structured participant selection and
placement processes entailing review panels and interviews.
They also engage in a range of activities, including promotion
and recruitment, monitoring and evaluation, professional
development programming, fundraising and grant management,
cultivating stakeholder relationships, and maintaining an alumni
network. Staff capacity should be sufficient to handle this
diversity of tasks.
43
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
Depending on the political and cultural setting, initiatives may
be best administered in-house by government agencies, within
academia or industry, or by an external organization. If external,
administrative entities should be trusted and credible “boundary
organizations” with a deep understanding of and relationships in
both the policy and scientific worlds, such as national academies
of sciences, scientific societies, or new structures established
specifically to operate the program. An example is the Swiss
Foundation for Science Policy Scholarships. The reputation and
perceived impartiality of the administering organization is often
crucial to the success of the effort.
Measurable Value: Documenting and communicating the
quantitative and qualitative outcomes of immersive science-
policy connection efforts is important and challenging. The
information is critical to determine return on investment and
to guide the evolution of efforts, yet it is often difficult to
demonstrate a direct correlation between participant engagement
and legislative or regulatory actions. Thus, endeavoring to
document the specific ways in which increasing and integrating
scientific capacity in government has resulted in tangible
changes, policies, or regulations being adopted is tremendously
valuable.
Benefits and results can be demonstrated quantitatively by
highlighting specific inputs, documenting the increase in
knowledge of the policy realm, and tracking applications,
placements, and career pursuits. Establishing reporting
instruments that document effort is likewise valuable, such as
through reporting of science communication activities (e.g.,
talking points, presentations, press releases, websites and
writing and editing of policy documents) or outreach efforts (e.g.,
meetings with stakeholders, service on interagency or external
coordinating committees, compilation of public comments).
Knowledge self-assessments at the beginning, midpoint, and
end of participation help measure learning from the embedded
experience and professional development offerings. Social
network analysis helps map expanded connections. And the
tracking of participant career paths spotlights expanding circles
of influence and employment trends for boundary-spanning
professions.
Qualitative evaluation can be achieved by collecting testimonials,
developing case studies, and conducting satisfaction surveys
and interviews with participating scientists and government
offices. These tools are also essential to ascertain the full impact
of science-policy connection efforts. Further, the perceived value
of such connection mechanisms, as well as supply and demand,
can be measured by tracking numbers of applicants, overall
placement requests, actual placements, and the number of
government entities participating and requesting to participate.
Community: Cultivating networks of current and alumni
participants and policymakers within and across science-
policy engagement initiatives supports expanded professional
development, flow of information, resource sharing, and
collaborative activities for broader impact. The short- and long-
range outputs of collective efforts build significantly on individual
engagement, especially for smaller programs. The power of
networks to expand mutually beneficial relationships, enhance
career opportunities, and create critical mass to leverage science
for evidence-based policy was stressed via survey input, focus
groups, and in most reports on science-policy engagement
reviewed for the landscape analysis.
44
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
Summary of Elements of Immersive Science-Policy Engagement Mechanisms
Purpose
Expose scientists to policy processes
Provide scientific input into policymaking
Expose policymakers to benefits of scientific process and inputs
Establish relationships between scientists and policymakers
Train scientists for careers in policy and civil service
Supply—Scientists
Outreach and awareness to recruit highly qualified participants
Meaningful opportunities to contribute and learn
Academic incentives and career flexibility
Demand—Policymakers
Government and policy structures that provide channels for scientific input
Availability and willingness of mentors/supervisors
Well-structured assignments that take advantage of participants’ skills and education
Champions to galvanize support and funding and guide through government bureaucracy
Focus areaGeneral
Thematic (e.g., environment, health, security)
Host institutions
Government: executive, legislative or parliamentary, judicial
Academies of sciences
Scientific societies
Universities
Nonprofit organizations
Think tanks
Multilateral organizations
Funding sources
Government agencies
Scientific societies
International organizations, development agencies
Foundations
Nonprofit organizations
Private sector
Geographic scope
Municipal
State
National
Regional
Global
45
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
Eligibility
Career stage (students, postdocs, mid-career, senior)
Discipline (specific or multidisciplinary)
Sector (academia, industry, government, NGOs)
Nationality
Administration, infrastructure, resources
Respected administrating entity with science and policy networks
Adequate staffing and infrastructure for recruitment, selection, placement, training, monitoring, evaluation, and alumni relations
Participant compensation and benefits structures
Fundraising capacity
DurationLength of assignment/experience
Timeframes of government administration and legislative cycles
Liability, labor laws, ethics
Compliance with tax, lobbying, employment, and ethics rules
Legal status of managing organization
Legal status of participants (volunteer, intern, fellow, employee, contractor)
Professional development
Communication
Leadership
Policy
Networking
Career mentoring
Sustainability
Strong government relations
Institutional stability for maintenance through political fluctuations
Supportive alumni engagement
Long-term funding
Sense of national/local ownership if funded externally
Evaluation, networks, and broader impacts
Inputs to host entity, policy processes, legislation, regulation, communication, and implementation
Impact on participants’ careers
Alumni network and S&T policy leadership
47
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
CHAPTER 5. EXPANDING CAPACITY International Cooperation, Training, Meetings, and Networks
While nearly 200 science-policy connection mechanisms were
identified through the landscape analysis, they are located
primarily in the United States and Europe and targeted mainly
to citizens of the countries where they operate. They also
provide only a small number of participant opportunities
compared to the interest and need for scientists to engage at
the intersection of science and policy. A much larger number of
scientific and policy communities in countries around the world
desire new opportunities to build science-policy relationships to
address national, regional, and global challenges. International
cooperative efforts can help expand national and regional
capacity. Stand-alone trainings, dialogue meetings, and networks
are also essential components for comprehensive international
science-policy engagement.
International CooperationInternational cooperation in science policy is an emerging
dimension of science diplomacy.25 Multi-country and regional
mechanisms can be effective approaches to building
relationships between the scientific and policy communities as
well as between countries. Examples include cases where a single
country has a limited supply of scientists and limited funding
or where there are transboundary issues or themes that benefit
from concerted efforts.
Some fellowship programs operate at the bilateral or regional
level, inviting applications from scientists and engineers from
multiple countries to work on issues relevant to all countries
involved while promoting regional integration and improved
relationships. Examples include the Australian-American Health
Policy Fellowship, open to mid-career U.S. professionals from all
sectors and entailing up to ten months in Australia conducting
research and working with Australian health policy experts
on issues relevant to both countries, and the Congressional
Research Fellowship Program of the Australian National
University, which places graduate and postgraduate students in
the offices of U.S. senators who serve on the Senate committees
on Foreign Relations and Armed Services.
International cooperation and intergovernmental initiatives can
also incentivize countries to test programs with less risk and
cost and can benefit lower-income countries with more limited
resources. The ASEAN-U.S. Science and Technology Fellowships
combine both the north–south cooperative element with an
intergovernmental element to build relationships aimed at
addressing regional issues. Recognizing the need for regional and
national ownership to ensure long-term operation, the program
transitioned from initial administration by a U.S. consulting firm
contracted by USAID to management by the ASEAN Secretariat.
Perhaps the biggest problem is how to develop capacity for
science advice in countries where there are not enough scientists to begin with. Sometimes this is where science advice is most needed. Here is where a regional approach would work: for instance, in the Caribbean islands, where there are so many issues about climate change, disasters, and biodiversity, and there is not enough scientific capacity. It’s not just a national issue.”
Ernesto Fernández Polcuch, Chief of Section, Science Policy and Partnerships, UNESCO
Another example involves the long-standing interest of POST in
the U.K. in developing parliamentary science advice in Africa and
other countries. From 2008 to 2012, it helped develop capacity for
evidence-informed policymaking in the Ugandan Parliament, and
contributed to a strategy for a new three-year U.K. Department
for International Development–funded program titled “Building
Capacity to Use Research Evidence in Africa.” The consortium that
was established, led by the African Institute for Development
Policy, engages both high- and mid-level health policymakers in
Kenya and Malawi, and includes a parliamentary internship
scheme that hosts two research staff members from each
country’s parliament for internships to help develop their skills in
accessing, interpreting, and using evidence in decision-making
48
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
processes and briefing their MPs. Ultimately, the program seeks
to foster “evidence champions” and provide learning
opportunities for other countries in sub-Saharan Africa and
internationally for promoting evidence use in decision making.
In July 2015, POST, the Commission on Science and Technology
of the Mexican Senate, and the Scientific and Technological
Consultative Forum of Mexico signed an agreement to exchange
knowledge and best practices to strengthen parliamentary
advice on S&T between the two countries. The collaboration
has led to the establishment of a new office dedicated to
providing knowledge-based advice to Mexican legislators
regarding science, technology, and innovation, the Oficina de
Información Científica y Tecnológica para el Congreso de la Unión
(INCyTU). The agreement includes a commitment to exchange
representatives of all parties to learn about the methodologies
for evidence-based legislation, such as the preparation of
documents for MPs and the establishment of internship programs
for doctoral students in parliamentarian offices. A similar
agreement was recently enacted between POST and Chile.
The course was a genuine life-changing experience. I had the
opportunity to re-evaluate my strategies when negotiating agreements and setting up the transatlantic initiatives I have led throughout the last few years. Some things are intuitive, but it is still of great importance understanding the mechanics behind successful science diplomacy efforts, and that’s one of the main things I have learned in this course.”
Maria Augusta Arruda-Bullock, pharmacologist from Brazil, participant in 2016 AAAS-TWAS Summer Course on Science Diplomacy
TrainingAs noted in the September 2016 Report on the Future of Scientific
Advice to the United Nations, “science is not an add-on but an
integral part of the response” to address global challenges and
ensure confidence in policies to effect necessary change.26 The
report, produced by the UN secretary-general’s Scientific Advisory
Board, emphasizes that “scientists need to learn more about
policymaking and implementation to engage more productively
with the policy community” and that “training institutes for
scientists and for policymakers at all levels should be established
to build capacity nationally and regionally.”
Likewise, most mechanisms identified through this landscape
analysis entail skill-building professional development
components. The range of topics addressed is broad yet falls
mainly into the three learning tracks of policy, communications,
and leadership. The chart on the next page provides examples of
topics that fit these three general tracks.
In addition to the deep learning provided by immersive programs,
trainings are offered by universities, scientific societies, research
institutions, and international organizations to teach scientists to
better understand policy-making processes and to communicate
their research to policymakers and other nonacademic audiences.
Programs encompass formal and informal higher education
courses, vary in geographical scope from local to global, and
range in duration from a few days to several weeks on an
intensive basis or distributed throughout the year.
Some examples of established and new collaborative
international trainings include:
¡¡ The Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI),
an intergovernmental research organization comprising
19 countries in the Americas that funds research on
transboundary issues of hemispheric scale, conducts
capacity-building events that link scientists and policymakers.
Rotating to different IAI countries, the programs address
strategies and tools to effect solutions for a wide range of
issues related to global change research, including climate
change, biodiversity, air pollution, water and food security,
forest management, and risk and resilience.
¡¡ The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) operates a summer
course on science diplomacy in Trieste, Italy, in collaboration
with the AAAS Center for Science Diplomacy. Designed for
young scientists interested in connecting their research
to international policymaking, diplomacy, and broader
development goals, the course is meant also for policymakers
interested in learning about the transnational scientific and
49
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
Sample Training Tracks for Science-Policy Engagement
Track 1: Policy
¡¡ Historic and current roles of science in domestic and international public policy.
¡¡ Forces that drive policy and their impact on the workings of science, e.g., economy, culture, values, national/global crisis events, political will.
¡¡ Benefits, challenges, and case studies of evidence-based policy.
¡¡ Intersection of the legislative or parliamentary, judicial, and executive branches of government.
¡¡ Governmental budget processes and their influence on policy.
¡¡ Multiple paths for policy development and implementation within government.
¡¡ Crafting, analyzing, and developing strategy to pitch to policymakers.
¡¡ Role and power of major actors striving to influence policy, e.g., lobbyists, think tanks, advocacy/special interest groups, the media.
¡¡ History and current trends in science diplomacy.
Track 2: Communications
¡¡ Framing science messages for policymakers and the public.
¡¡ Communication tools and methods for different audiences.
¡¡ Styles of writing, public speaking, visual presentations, and exhibits to engage various stakeholders.
¡¡ Strategies to effectively communicate scientific method and theory, uncertainty, and risk to nonscientific audiences.
¡¡ Utilizing social media for science-policy outreach and advocacy.
¡¡ Cultivating positive relationships with the media; in-person and on-camera/radio interviewing skills.
Track 3: Leadership
¡¡ Ethics and integrity in science.
¡¡ Identifying, cultivating, and facilitating collaborative opportunities.
¡¡ Systems analysis, building consensus, fostering cooperation, and negotiation.
¡¡ Navigating different cultures in local, state, federal, and international government settings.
¡¡ Identifying and working with different leadership styles.
¡¡ Effectively engaging in sensitive conversations.
¡¡ Managing vertically and horizontally with supervisors, colleagues, and staff.
¡¡ Leading meetings, teams, and working groups.
¡¡ Efficient program/project management; assessing and managing workflow, deadlines, and priorities.
¡¡ Budgeting and fiscal and contract management.
50
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
technological issues influencing their work, and for research
funders looking to identify ways to build international
networks. The annual event typically brings together upwards
of 40 participants from more than 30 countries.
¡¡ In 2016, the first Summer School on Evidence and Policy
was convened by the European Commission’s Joint
Research Centre (JRC) and the International Institute for
Applied Systems Analysis. The three-day intensive event
brought together early- to mid-career researchers and
policymakers to learn how to optimize the use of scientific
evidence in policymaking. The course combines high-level
panel discussions with master classes on the provision of
evidence in a policy context that cover uncertainty, effective
communication, modeling and big data, strategies to test
policy ideas, and anticipatory foresight and games to
simulate policy scenarios.
The Global Young Academy (GYA) is leading efforts to establish
National Young Academies in developing countries and regionally
to train and connect emerging leaders at the intersection of
science and policy. An example is the Africa Science Leadership
Programme, organized by the GYA, in partnership with the
University of Pretoria, to provide early and mid-career African
academics with leadership, teamwork, and collaboration skills
aimed at enabling them to solve the complex issues that face
Africa and the global community.
Diaspora networks and regional and international networks
can help countries with less capacity to participate in regional
and global dialogues. INGSA is actively striving to close the gap
between the need and existing capacity for science advice. It
hosted its second conference in September 2016, and is focused
on crafting a set of principles and standards to guide science
advice, and on delivering a series of capacity-building workshops
for both scientists and policy practitioners around the world.
In the United States, the Engaging Scientists & Engineers in
Policy (ESEP) initiative has been operating through a consortium
of organizations and universities to support early career
scientists to learn about and contribute to policy. Activities
include topical and skill-building webinars, and capacity-
building and networking events. Among ESEP’s aims is to foster
a paradigm-shift in higher education to embrace cultivation of
public service as a central mission, and in particular to encourage
development of civically engaged scientists.
Also of note is an initiative called 314 Action that was launched in
late 2016 in the United States to train and support scientists and
engineers to run for elected office. The organization is focused on
“electing more leaders to the U.S. Senate, House, State Executive
and Legislative offices who come from STEM backgrounds.”
EducationSeparate from traditional courses and academic programs in
science policy or S&T studies, more and more U.S. universities
are providing policy-focused and cross-boundary training, some
through multi-centric initiatives such as Emerging Leaders in
Science and Society, and some through individual graduate
courses such as the Hurford Science Diplomacy Initiative at The
Rockefeller University, Science Outside the Lab at Arizona State
University, and the Water Diplomacy program at Tufts University.
The University of Rochester, in upstate New York, has instituted
a Science and Technology Policy pathway to prepare its graduate
students to compete for S&T policy fellowships (e.g., AAAS S&T
Policy Fellowship, National Academies Mirzayan Fellowships).
In the European Union, the JRC has launched a pilot Collaborative
Doctoral Partnerships scheme to train a new generation of
doctoral graduates in science and technology with a focus on the
science-policy interface. The program aims to train graduates to
understand research needs at different stages of policy cycles,
and to cultivate their transferable skills to provide scientific
support to policy and conduct science communication and
knowledge management.
In the United States, student-led science policy groups have
grown on campuses around the country, such as the MIT Science
Policy Initiative and recently created science diplomacy clubs
at the University of Pennsylvania, New York University, Yale,
Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and Tuft’s Fletcher
School of Law and Diplomacy. The National Science Policy Group
serves as the network hub for more than fifty campus initiatives
across the country.
Yet in many cases, students and faculty are unaware of efforts
under way at their institutions. “There’s a growing bottom-up
movement among graduate students who are demanding this
training in science policy,” noted Tobin Smith, vice president for
policy at the Association of American Universities and coauthor
of Beyond Sputnik: U.S. Science Policy in the 21st Century. “But
I’ve found that students often don’t even know the resources
available on their own campus.”
51
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
MeetingsMulti-stakeholder meetings bringing together professionals from
academia, government, NGOs, scientific societies, academies
of sciences, think tanks, and industry are among the most
widespread means for connecting scientists with policymakers.
These gatherings may take place multiple times a year, annually,
or biennially; and they may be targeted to local, national,
regional, or global levels.
Local events, often in more informal networking settings, help
establish strong personal and professional connections that
foster collaboration. Some countries have created regular
events in which scientists present their work or simply network
with MPs and others in the science policy arena in their city,
state, or province. Examples include the Bacon & Eggheads
monthly breakfast seminars in Canada and the monthly Science
Breakfasts at the French Embassy in Washington, D.C. The
Science Diplomats Club in Washington also engages embassy
S&T representatives in a monthly dialogue with scientists and
science initiatives. Finland’s Society of Scientists and Parliament
Members, known as TUTKAS, convenes researchers and MPs.
At the U.S. federal level, many scientific and engineering societies
host either independently or collectively Congressional Visit
Days. At these events, society members are trained to present
effectively to their members of Congress and then to visit those
offices to discuss the value of science to policy and its relevance
to specific constituent groups.
There’s a growing bottom-up movement among graduate
students who are demanding this training in science policy. But I’ve found that students often don’t even know the resources available on their own campus.”
Tobin Smith, vice president for policy, Association of American Universities
Some long-running national science policy conferences and multi-
stakeholder meetings include the following:
¡¡ Every year, the U.S. National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine host hundreds of conferences,
workshops, symposia, roundtables, standing committees,
and other gatherings that attract the finest minds in academia
and the public and private sectors. These multi-stakeholder
events serve as essential venues for discussion and debate,
and enable structured dialogue between scientists and
policymakers.
¡¡ For more than 40 years, the annual AAAS Forum on Science
& Technology Policy has convened scientists and engineers,
research administrators, industrial R&D managers,
policy-makers, association officials, students, diplomats,
government affairs specialists, public affairs officers, science
writers, and others interested in the intersection of policy
with S&T.
¡¡ Now in its 18th year, the annual Science Meets Parliament
gatherings in Australia brings together working scientists to
Canberra for a two-day program of professional development
and networking to foster better communication of science to
the media, policymakers, and parliamentarians.
More recently, the Canadian Science Policy Centre (CSPC) was
launched in 2009. It conducts an annual grassroots, nonpartisan
national forum aimed at uniting stakeholders, strengthening
dialogue, and enabling action with respect to current and
emerging issues in national science, technology, and innovation
policy in Canada. The CSPC acts as a hub that (1) promotes active
national dialogue in support of more effective coordination and
collaboration across all stakeholders; (2) nurtures a broad and
evolving community of policy thinkers; and (3) builds national
expertise by introducing and fostering initiatives to train the next
wave of leaders in science, technology, and innovation policy.
In 2015, the inaugural EU Science Meets Parliaments event was
launched, which convenes scientists from all over Europe to
meet with members of the European and national parliaments.
The event was cohosted by the Science and Technology Options
Assessment and the JRC of the European Commission to foster a
structured dialogue between scientists and policymakers.
52
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
Beyond but inclusive of science policy, regional and global
science and society conferences and multi-stakeholder meetings
have been active for many years, and new regional gatherings
have launched in the past decade. Several long-established and
more recent events are listed below.
¡¡ AAAS Annual Meeting: a global multidisciplinary science
gathering, combining scientific sessions, speakers,
professional development seminars, and networking
opportunities attended by more than 5,000 scientists,
engineers, educators, policymakers, students, and journalists
from around the world.
¡¡ World Science Forum: a biennial international event co-
organized by UNESCO, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences,
AAAS and ICSU, as a platform for dialogue on new emerging
issues affecting science, policy and society. The invitation-
only event gathers nearly 1,000 scientists, policy makers,
industry, representatives of the civil society and the media.
¡¡ EuroScience Open Forum: a biennial, pan-European general
science conference dedicated to scientific research and
innovation bringing together more than 4,500 leading
thinkers, innovators, policymakers, journalists, and educators
from more than 90 countries to discuss current and future
breakthroughs in science.
¡¡ Science Agora: Started in Japan in 2006 with the aim to
realize “science harmonized with society” and a “society
harmonized with science” through dialogue and collaboration
of diverse stakeholders.
¡¡ Science Forum South Africa held its first gathering in 2015
to address the role of science, technology, and innovation
in society; to promote international partnerships; and
to facilitate interaction by key science, technology, and
innovation players, including senior government leaders,
scientists, members of industry and civil society, and
students.
¡¡ Latin American and Caribbean Open Science Forum convened
its inaugural event in 2016 drawing senior government
leaders, academics, members of industry and civil society,
and students to address science and promote science-policy
linkages.
Young scientists are ready to take an active role to be the
interface between the policymakers and the people, to help formulate and communicate knowledge findings, in both ways to the policymakers and to the public.”
Ivana Gadjanski, neuroscientist from Serbia, participant in World Science Forum 2015
53
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
NetworksRegional and international networks of scientific organizations
and individuals also build linkages among multiple stakeholders.
Some of these include INGSA, the International Council for
Science, with a membership of 121 national bodies; and
the InterAcademy Partnership, a global grouping of science
academies from 107 countries. In addition, the European
Academies’ Science Advisory Council links together the national
scientific academies of EU member states to coordinate
their provision of independent science advice to European
policymakers.
Organizations and campaigns have also been launched over
the last decade focused on developing global science policy
leadership and networks for early and mid-career scientists.
Among these are the Young Scientists Programme, the Global
Young Academy, the World Association of Young Scientists, and
the International Consortium of Research Staff Associations.
In particular, these entities are addressing integration of early
career researchers into broader high-level policy forums, such as
the World Economic Forum and the World Science Forum.
These four organizations came together for the first time at the
2015 World Science Forum in Budapest to present a unified voice
for the emerging international young scientists’ movement,
which is demanding a seat at the table in policy discussions and
decision making that require scientific input. More than 50 early
career researchers from 30 countries gathered at the event to
analyze challenges and opportunities facing young scientists
globally, identify strategies that link global challenges to career
opportunities, and present policy recommendations to empower
young scientists to leave their impact on the 2030 Sustainable
Development Goals.
Many of the science-policy connection mechanisms identified
through the landscape analysis also support networking among
their alumni and strive to create opportunities for collaboration
among their own participants and with other networks.
While useful efforts have been made to map networks and
international systems addressing science policy at the global
level,27 more strategic effort to actively link these networks of
individuals will enable greater output and expand impact.
55
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This report provides recommendations to support greater
engagement of scientists in policymaking in countries around the
world, and it outlines factors for effective, immersive science-
policy connection mechanisms to help cultivate new generations
of boundary-spanning STEM leaders.
The study revealed that more scientists are interested in
engaging at the intersection of science and policy as compared
to perceived demand from government or availability of
opportunities to engage. The majority of immersive mechanisms
identified as well as most of the trainings and dialogue meetings
highlighted in chapter 5 reported greater numbers of applicants
than availability of slots. There is significant opportunity to build
on this enthusiasm.
Alumni of science-policy connection mechanisms tend to remain
engaged in policy throughout their careers, either in full-time
policy-related positions in government or other sectors or
through volunteer engagement. Those who return to academia
help educate future generations of scientists to understand their
value at the intersection of science and policy. Collectively, they
represent a significant international resource of highly qualified,
adaptable professionals able to span the boundaries of science
and policy to effect solutions for global challenges.
The international landscape analysis concluded with an
overarching recommendation to cultivate and network such
boundary-spanning STEM leaders who can engage successfully
at the intersection of science and policy.
There is a convergence of interest in mechanisms for science-
policy engagement, growing demand from scientists to
participate, and expanding complexity of societal concerns
that science and technology can help address. This presents a
critical nexus of opportunity for organizations and countries to
collaborate to strengthen science-policy linkages, cultivate an
ethos of STEM civic engagement, and foster boundary-spanning
capacity to address global challenges that no nation can solve
independently. This is a pivotal time for systemic action to
achieve these aims.
It is critical for science to be engaged in the decision-making
process more systematically, synthesized in ways that are relevant to current societal problems and challenges, and communicated to political leaders and societal groups in ways that are accessible and comprehensible.
The Future of Scientific Advice to the United Nations: A Summary Report to the Secretary-General of the United Nations from the Scientific Advisory Board, September 2016
56
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
Recommendations
Cultivate and network boundary-spanning STEM leaders around the world to engage at the science-policy interface.
¡¡ Establish more immersive science-policy engagement mechanisms to give scientists the tools to address complex societal
challenges, especially in countries and regions where policymakers are not already well linked to the scientific community.
¡¡ Broaden the diversity of scientists and engineers engaging at the science-policy interface by expanding opportunities for and
recruiting participants from underserved populations and geographic regions, as well as from a variety of disciplines, backgrounds,
cultural perspectives, genders, and career stages.
¡¡ Create opportunities to network and forge connections among participants, alumni, funders, and administrators across
communities to foster innovation and global collaboration.
¡¡ Establish general core competencies and outline sets of skills that empower boundary-spanning expertise in the S&T policy arena
to support shared understanding and aims across different political and cultural environments.
¡¡ Expand and create trainings, courses, meetings, and networking opportunities to facilitate boundary-spanning learning and
connections.
¡¡ Foster incentive structures within academia that reward science-policy engagement, outreach, mentoring, and other avenues of
service to society.
Communicate the applications of science and how they serve society.
¡¡ Foster an ethos of civic engagement internationally by training STEM students on the ability and responsibility of science to help
meet the needs of countries and citizens around the world.
¡¡ Increase training opportunities to researchers, faculty, and students for effective communication about science to non-scientific
audiences, with an emphasis on translating the applications of research to spark innovation and solve problems, in ways that can
be readily understood by the public and policymakers.
¡¡ Demonstrate opportunities for and the value of policy-related nonacademic career paths that provide meaningful avenues to
communicate and apply science for society.
Facilitate knowledge sharing and collaboration.
¡¡ Facilitate the exchange of information about activities and mechanisms so that current efforts can benefit from other models and
experiences, and to inspire the creation of new mechanisms informed by successful practices.
¡¡ Strengthen science diplomacy and advance regional and global cooperation on science and technology policy by cultivating
connections among national, regional, and international science and policy stakeholders.
¡¡ Establish an online global science policy resource and networking hub to provide centralized access to information, tools and
practices, case studies, lessons learned, training and funding opportunities, events, and science policy jobs and related news.
57
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
Endnotes1 United Nations, “Sustainable Development Goals: 17 Goals to Transform Our World,”
http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals.
2 OECD, Scientific Advice for Policy Making: The Role and Responsibility of Expert Bodies and Individual Scientists, Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers no. 21 (Paris: OECD Publishing, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5js33l1jcpwb-en.
3 California Council on Science & Technology, Elements of a Successful Science and Technology Policy Fellowship Program for State Legislatures (January 2016), http://fellows.ccst.us/documents/Elements_2016.pdf.
4 The Center for Creative Leadership defines “boundary-spanning leadership” as the capability to create direction, alignment and commitment across boundaries, fields, or sectors to achieve a higher vision or goal (Ernst & Yip, 2009). See: http://www.ccl.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/BoundarySpanningLeadership.pdf.
5 International Network for Government Science Advice, “Principles and Guidelines of Science Advice,” http://www.ingsa.org/ingsa-news/principles-and-guidelines-of-science-advice-2/.
6 Center for Research and Development Strategy, “Toward the Establishment of Principles regarding the Roles and Responsibilities of Science and Government in Policy Making,” Japan Science and Technology Agency, CRDS-FY2011-SP-09, 2012, https://www.jst.go.jp/crds/pdf/en/CRDS-FY2011-SP-09_EN.pdf.
7 See the InterAcademy Council website, http://interacademycouncil.net/24770/29587.aspx.
8 “Declaration of the 2015 Budapest World Science Forum on the Enabling Power of Science,” adopted November 7, 2015, http://www.sciforum.hu/declaration/index.html.
9 Tateo Arimoto and Yasushi Sato, “Rebuilding Public Trust in Science for Policy-making,” Science 337, no. 6099 (September 7, 2012): pp. 1176–77, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/337/6099/1176.full#ref-11.
10 Tateo Arimoto and Yasushi Sato, “Five Years after Fukushima: Scientific Advice in Japan,” Palgrave Communications, June 7, 2016, http://www.palgrave-journals.com/articles/palcomms201625#ref3.
11 Oxford Dictionaries’ word of the year for 2016 was “post-truth”—an adjective defined as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”
12 C. P. Snow’s “Two Cultures” was part of a 1959 lecture in which he lamented the cultural divide separating two great areas of human intellectual activity, science and the arts. Snow argued that practitioners in both areas should build bridges to advance human knowledge and benefit society.
13 Kathy Wren, “Barnard Lecture: Science Must Change Radically to Solve Global Challenges,” AAAS, July 3, 2015, https://www.aaas.org/news/stpf/barnard-lecture-science-must-change-radically-solve-global-challenges.
14 Geoffrey Boulton and Heide Hackmann, Science for a sustainable and just world: a new framework for global science policy? UNESCO Science Report – 2015, Towards 2030. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, France. ISBN 978-92-3-100129-1.
15 E. William Colglazier, “Encourage Governments to Heed Scientific Advice,” Nature 537, no. 7622 (September 28, 2016), http://www.nature.com/news/encourage-governments-to-heed-scientific-advice-1.20695.
16 James Wilsdon, Kristiann Allen, and Katsia Paulavets, “Science Advice to Governments: Diverse Systems, Common Challenges,” briefing paper, Auckland conference, August 28–29, 2014, http://ingsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Science_Advice_to_Governments_Briefing_Paper_25-August.pdf.
17 Roope Kaaronen, Scientific Support for Sustainable Development Policies: A Typology of Science–Policy Interfaces with Case Studies, Sitra Studies 118 (Helsinki: Sitra, 2016), http://www.sitra.fi/julkaisut/Selvityksiä-sarja/Selvityksia118.pdf.
18 Roger A. Pielke Jr., The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).
19 See “World Bank Country and Lending Groups,” https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519.
20 Combining “very important” and “extremely important” responses.
21 Harold Hartog School of Government and Policy, Tel Aviv University, https://en-social-sciences.tau.ac.il/government/good-government.
22 See https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/cabinet/exit-memos/office-science-and-technology-policy
23 See http://fellows.ccst.us/documents/Funding_memo_2015.pdf.
24 Jerome B. Wiesner Symposium, University of Michigan, March 30–31, 2015; symposium summary, February 2016. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=dW1pY2guZWR1fHdpZXNuZXItc3ltcG9zaXVtfGd4OjIwM2NjYjA3ZjVlNGVhYzk.
25 Peter D. Gluckman, “Science Advice to Governments: An Emerging Dimension of Science Diplomacy,” Science & Diplomacy, June 9, 2016, http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2016/science-advice-governments.
26 UNESCO, The Future of Scientific Advice to the United Nations: A Summary Report to the Secretary-General of the United Nations from the Scientific Advisory Board (Paris: UNESCO, 2016), http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002458/245801e.pdf.
27 Arimoto and Sato, http://www.palgrave-journals.com/articles/palcomms201625.
58
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
FELLOWSHIPS (generally one year or longer) Country Website
ASEAN-U.S. Science and Technology Fellowship Program
ASEANhttps://www.usaid.gov/asia-regional/asean-us-science-and-technology-fellows-program
Australian-American Health Policy Fellowship Australiahttp://www.commonwealthfund.org/grants-and-fellowships/fellowships/australian-american-health-policy-fellowship
ANU U. S. Congressional Research Fellowship Program Australiahttps://crawford.anu.edu.au/study/intern-fellow-programs/us-congressional-research-fellowship-program
Harkness Fellowships in Health Care Policy and Practice
Australiahttp://www.commonwealthfund.org/grants-and-fellowships/fellowships/harkness-fellowships
Canadian Science Policy Fellowships Canada https://www.mitacs.ca/en/canadian-science-policy-fellowship
Health Canada Science Policy Fellowships Program Canadahttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/rescar/fellow-bours/science-pol-eng.php
DST-STI Policy Fellowship Programme Indiahttp://dst.gov.in/sites/default/files/DST_STI_Policy_Fellowships%20Advts.pdf
Mimshak Science Policy Fellowships Program Israel http://www.mimshak.org.il
Ian Axford (New Zealand) Fellowships in Public Policy* New Zealand http://www.fulbright.org.nz/awards/usscholar/axford
Smart Nation Fellowship Programme Singapore https://fellowships.data.gov.sg
Stiftung Wissenschaftliche Politikstipendien (Swiss Foundation for Science Policy Scholarships)
Switzerland www.politikstipendien.ch
NERC Policy Placement Scheme for Researchers and Policymakers
U.K. http://www.nerc.ac.uk/funding/available/schemes/placements
University of Cambridge Junior Policy Fellowships U.K.http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/policy-fellowships/junior-policy-fellows
AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships U.S.http://www.aaas.org/program/science-technology-policy-fellowships
AACP-AAAS Congressional Fellowship Program U.S.http://www.aacp.org/career/scholarresidence/Pages/AACPAAASCongressionalFellowshipProgram.aspx
AAS John Bahcall Public Policy Fellowship U.S. https://aas.org/programs/john-bahcall-public-policy-fellowship
ACS Public Policy Fellowships U.S.http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/policy/policyfellowships.html
APPENDIX A:
Science-Policy Engagement Mechanisms
– Listed in alphabetical order by country under each mechanism model.
– Programs listed may place participants within government settings (municipal, state, regional, international) or outside of government.
– This list is not exhaustive or complete; it presents a broad range of mechanisms that embed participants in assignments with a policy focus.
– Inclusion in the list does not imply endorsement by AAAS, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, or any other entity.
* Programs open to applicants beyond STEM disciplines.
59
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
AERA Congressional Fellowship U.S.http://www.aera.net/Research-Policy-Advocacy/AERA-Congressional-Fellowship
AGI William L. Fisher Congressional Geoscience Fellowship
U.S.https://www.americangeosciences.org/policy/internships-and-fellowships#PolicyFellowship
AGU Congressional Science Fellowship U.S. http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/congressional_fellows
AIP Congressional Science Fellowship Program (with ASA)
U.S. https://www.aip.org/policy/fellowships/cf
AIP State Department Science Fellowship U.S. https://www.aip.org/policy/fellowships/sdf
AMS Congressional Science Fellowship U.S.https://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/policy/congressional-science-fellowship
AMS-AAAS Congressional Fellowship in Government U.S.http://www.ams.org/programs/ams-fellowships/ams-aaas/ams-aaas-congressional-fellowship
AND Public Health Fellowships U.S.http://www.eatrightpro.org/resource/news-center/member-updates/events-and-deadlines/2017-public-health-fellowship-in-government
ANS Glenn T. Seaborg Congressional Science and Engineering Fellowship
U.S. http://www.ans.org/honors/cfellowship
APA Congressional Fellowship Program U.S. http://www.apa.org/about/awards/congress-fellow.aspx
APA Executive Branch Science Fellowship Program U.S. http://www.apa.org/about/awards/science-fellowship.aspx
APAICS Congressional Fellowship Program U.S. http://apaics.org/congressional-fellows
APHA Public Health Fellowship in Government U.S.http://www.apha.org/professional-development/apha-internships-and-fellowships/public-health-fellowship
APS Congressional Science Fellowships U.S. http://www.aps.org/policy/fellowships/congressional.cfm
APS Early Career Advocacy Fellowship U.S.http://www.the-aps.org/mm/SciencePolicy/Advocacy/Advocacy-Fellowship
APSA Congressional Fellowship Program U.S. http://www.apsanet.org/cfp
APTR-CDC Preventive Medicine and Public Health Fellowship Program
U.S. http://www.aptrweb.org/?page=fellowships_cdc
ASA Lansdale Public Policy Fellowship U.S.http://www.asahq.org/advocacy/federal-activities/items-of-interest/lansdale-public-policy-fellowship
ASA/CSSA/SSSA Congressional Science Fellowship Program
U.S. https://www.agronomy.org/science-policy/fellowship
ASBMB Science Policy Fellowship Program U.S. https://www.asbmb.org/Advocacy/Fellowship
ASME Congressional Fellows Program U.S.https://www.asme.org/about-asme/get-involved/advocacy-government-relations/federal-fellows-program/congressional-fellowships
* Programs open to applicants beyond STEM disciplines.
60
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
ASH Congressional Fellowship Program U.S. http://www.hematology.org/Advocacy/6872.aspx
ASHG Genetics & Education Fellowship U.S. http://www.ashg.org/pages/policy_fellowship.shtml
ASM Congressional Science Fellowship U.S.https://www.asm.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7535
ASMBB Science Policy Fellowship Program U.S. https://www.asbmb.org/Advocacy/Fellowship
ASME Federal Government Fellowship Program U.S.https://www.asme.org/about-asme/get-involved/advocacy-government-relations/federal-fellows-program
ASME Foundation Swanson Fellowship: Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office
U.S.https://www.asme.org/about-asme/get-involved/advocacy-government-relations/federal-fellows-program/foundation-swanson-fellowship-advanced
ASPPH/NHTSA Public Health Fellowships (multiple programs)
U.S. http://www.aspph.org/study/fellowships-and-internships
AVMA Fellowship Program U.S.https://www.avma.org/advocacy/getinvolved/pages/avma-fellowship-program.aspx
BPS Congressional Policy Fellowship U.S.http://www.biophysics.org/AwardsFunding/CongressionalPolicyFellowship/tabid/5482/Default.aspx
Brookings Institute Legis Congressional Fellowship* U.S.https://www.brookings.edu/fellowships-programs/legis-congressional-fellowship
BSCES Legislative Fellow Program U.S.http://www.bsces.org/outreach-advocacy/advocacy/legislative-fellow-102
CCST California Science and Technology Policy Fellowship
U.S. http://fellows.ccst.us
Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Policy Fellowships (three programs)*
U.S. http://www.cbcfinc.org/fellowships
Congressional Budget Office Visiting Scholars U.S. https://www.cbo.gov/about/careers/visitingscholars
Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute Public Policy Fellowship Program
U.S. http://chci.org/programs/public_policy_fellowship
Consortium for Ocean Leadership Franck Cushing Marine Science Policy Fellowship
U.S.http://policy.oceanleadership.org/who-we-are/policy-opportunities/frank-m-cushing-science-policy-fellowship
CORO Fellowships* U.S. http://www.corofellowship.org
Council on Foreign Relations International Fellowship in Nuclear Security
U.S. http://www.cfr.org/thinktank/fellowships/iaf_nuclear.html
DOD ARPA-E Fellows U.S. https://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=site-page/arpa-e-fellows
DOE Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowship Program
U.S. https://science.energy.gov/wdts/einstein
DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Science and Technology Policy Fellowships
U.S.https://energy.gov/eere/education/energy-efficiency-and-renewable-energy-science-and-technology-policy-fellowships
Empire State Fellows Program* U.S. https://www.dos.ny.gov/newnyleaders/fellows_app.html
* Programs open to applicants beyond STEM disciplines.
61
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
EPA Faculty Fellowship Program, National Research Council
U.S.https://www.epa.gov/careers/fellowships-scholarships-and-post-doctoral-opportunities#nas
ESA Science Policy Fellows Program U.S.http://www.entsoc.org/sci-pol/esa-science-policy-fellows-program
FDA Commissioner’s Fellowship Program U.S.http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/FellowshipInternshipGraduateFacultyPrograms/CommissionersFellowshipProgram/default.htm
FDA Tobacco Regulatory Science Fellowship U.S.http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Activities/Education/FDAFellowship.aspx
Foster America U.S. http://www.foster-america.org
Fulbright-Clinton Public Policy Fellowships U.S.http://us.fulbrightonline.org/about/types-of-awards/fulbright-clinton-public-policy
FUSE Corps* U.S. http://www.fusecorps.org
Genetics and Public Policy Fellowship U.S. http://www.genome.gov/10003979
Georgetown University Government Affairs Institute Capitol Hill Fellowship*
U.S.http://gai.georgetown.edu/courses-programs/capitol-hill-fellowship
GSA Congressional Science Fellowship U.S. http://www.geosociety.org/csf
Health and Aging Policy Fellows Program U.S. http://www.healthandagingpolicy.org
Hellman Fellowship in Science and Technology Policy, American Academy of Arts and Sciences
U.S.https://www.amacad.org/content/about/about.aspx?d=96&t=4&s=94
Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship Program U.S. https://www.humphreyfellowship.org
IDA STPI Policy Fellowship Program U.S.https://www.ida.org/en/STPI/STPIResearchStaff/FellowshipProgram.aspx
IEEE-USA Government Fellowships U.S. http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/GOVFEL
ION Government Fellowship Program U.S. http://www.ion.org/membership/government-fellows.cfm
Jefferson Science Fellowship Program U.S. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/Jefferson
Mellon/ACLS Public Fellows U.S. https://www.acls.org/programs/publicfellowscomp
Millennium Challenge Corporation Science & Technology Fellowship
U.S. https://mccif.asu.edu
MRS Congressional Fellows U.S. http://www.mrs.org/congressional-fellows
NAS Gilbert S. Omenn Fellowship U.S.http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Activities/Education/OmennFellowship.aspx?_ga=1.227308505.599393614.1485994039
NAS Gulf Science Policy Fellowships U.S. http://www.nationalacademies.org/gulf/fellowships/index.html
* Programs open to applicants beyond STEM disciplines.
62
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
NCHS/AcademyHealth Health Policy Fellowships U.S. http://www.academyhealth.org/nchs
NOAA John A. Knauss Marine Policy Fellowship U.S.http://seagrant.noaa.gov/FundingFellowships/KnaussFellowship.aspx
OSA Arthur H. Guenther Congressional Fellowship Program
U.S.http://www.osa.org/en-us/about_osa/public_policy/congressional_fellowships/guenther
OSA/MRS Congressional Fellowship U.S.http://www.osa.org/en-us/about_osa/public_policy/congressional_fellowships/osamrs
Partnership for Public Service Civil Service Fellows Program
U.S.https://ourpublicservice.org/about-us/civil-service-fellows-program.php
Paul and Daisy Soros Fellowships for New Americans* U.S. https://www.pdsoros.org
Presidential Innovation Fellows U.S. https://presidentialinnovationfellows.gov
Presidential Management Fellowships U.S. https://www.pmf.gov
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Policy Fellows
U.S. http://www.healthpolicyfellows.org/home.php
Sasakawa USA Congressional Fellowship Program U.S.https://spfusa.org/programs/sasakawa-usa-congressional-fellowship-program
SFN Policy Fellowships U.S.https://www.sfn.org/awards-and-funding/individual-prizes-and-fellowships
SHINE Applied Public Health Informatics Fellowship U.S. http://www.shinefellows.org/aphif-2
SME Congressional Fellowship Program U.S.http://www.smenet.org/about-sme/government-affairs/congressional-fellowship-program
Smithsonian Institute James Smithson Fellowship* U.S.https://www.smithsonianofi.com/fellowship-opportunities/james-smithson-fellowship-program
Soros Justice Advocacy Fellowships* U.S.https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/grants/soros-justice-fellowships
SPIE Arthur H. Guenther Congressional Fellowship U.S. http://spie.org/about-spie/public-policy/policy-fellowships
SPSSI James Marshall Public Policy Fellowship U.S.http://www.spssi.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewPage&pageID=747&nodeID=1
SRCD Policy Fellowships U.S. http://www.srcd.org/policy-media/policy-fellowships
SSSA Congressional Science Fellowship U.S. https://www.soils.org/science-policy/fellowship
State Department Civil Service STEM Fellowships U.S. https://careers.state.gov/intern/other-programs/civil-service-fellowship-programs
State Department Franklin Fellows Program* U.S. https://careers.state.gov/work/fellowships/franklin-fellows
State Department William C. Foster Fellows Visiting Scholars Program*
U.S. https://www.state.gov/t/avc/c40184.htm
* Programs open to applicants beyond STEM disciplines.
63
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
STPI Policy Fellowship Program U.S.https://www.ida.org/en/STPI/STPIResearchStaff/FellowshipProgram.aspx
Supreme Court Fellows Program* U.S. https://www.supremecourt.gov/fellows/default.aspx
TechCongress Congressional Innovation Fellowship U.S. https://www.techcongress.io/the-fellowship
UCS Kendall Science Fellows Program U.S.http://www.ucsusa.org/about/kendall-science-fellows.html#.VnRmTN-rTR1
USAID Democracy Fellows and Grants Program* U.S.http://www.iie.org/Programs/USAID-Democracy-Fellows-and-Grants-Program#.WKG7IhIrJE4
USAID Global Health Fellowships* U.S. https://www.ghfp.net
USAID Payne International Development Fellowship* U.S.http://www.paynefellows.org/?areaid=2&contentid=941&CFID=176&CFTOKEN=61AD4373-F629-4221-9EC195AB5B9C9759
U.S. Government Recent Graduates Program* U.S.https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/hiring-information/students-recent-graduates/#url=graduates
White House Fellowships* U.S. https://www.whitehouse.gov/participate/fellows
Winston Health Policy Fellowship* U.S. http://www.winstonfellowship.org
Women’s Policy Inc. Congressional Fellowships on Women and Public Policy*
U.S. http://www.womenspolicy.org/our-work/congressional-fellows
Woodrow Wilson Higher Education Policy Fellowship* U.S.http://woodrow.org/news/grant-new-higher-education-policy-fellowship-program
INTERNSHIPS (generally less than one year) Country Website
Australian Academy of Science Policy Internship Australiahttps://www.science.org.au/news-and-events/newsletters/emcr-pathways-newsletter/emcr-pathways-issue-8/australian-academy
Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering
Australia http://mams.rmit.edu.au/9x842t7iymz5.pdf
Australia National University US Congressional Research Fellowship Program
Australiahttps://crawford.anu.edu.au/study/intern-fellow-programs/us-congressional-research-fellowship-program
NERC Research Council Policy Internships Scheme U.K.http://www.nerc.ac.uk/funding/available/postgrad/advanced/policy-interns
POST Parliamentary Academic Fellowship Scheme U.K.http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/offices/bicameral/post/fellowships/parliamentary-academic-fellowship-scheme
POST Fellowships U.K.http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/offices/bicameral/post/fellowships
UCL Postgraduate secondments to Whitehall U.K.http://www.ucl.ac.uk/european-institute/news-repository/pg-secondments
AAAS Science Policy Internships U.S. http://www.aaas.org/page/internship-opportunities
* Programs open to applicants beyond STEM disciplines.
64
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
AAU Internship Program U.S. https://www.aau.edu/about/article.aspx?id=6294
AGI Geoscience Policy Internship U.S.http://www.americangeosciences.org/policy/internships-and-fellowships#PolicyInternship
AIBS Policy Internships and Fellowships* U.S. http://www.aibs.org/public-policy/student_opportunities.html
APAICS Summer Internship Program U.S. http://apaics.org/summer-interns
APLU Governmental Affairs Internship U.S.http://www.aplu.org/members/jobs-at-aplu-and-member-institutions/employment-opportunities/governmental-affairs-internship
ASPPH Public Health Internship U.S. http://www.aspph.org/study/fellowships-and-internships
Avalere FDA Fellowship Program U.S. http://avalere.com/careers/fda-fellowship-program
Brookings Center for Technology Innovation Internship U.S. http://www.brookings.edu/about/employment#/?tab=1
Center for American Progress Internships U.S. https://www.americanprogress.org/about/internships
Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute Congressional Internship Program
U.S. http://chci.org/programs/internships
DHS STEM Summer Internship Program U.S. http://www.orau.gov/dhseducation/internships
DOE Scholars Program* U.S. http://orise.orau.gov/doescholars
Economic Innovation Group Policy Fellowship* U.S.http://eig.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EIG-Fall-2016-Policy-Fellow-Job-Description.pdf
Eben Tisdale Fellowship, Fund for American Studies* U.S. https://tfas.org/programs/tisdale-fellowship
Google Public Policy Fellowship* U.S. https://www.google.com/policyfellowship
Herbert Scoville Jr. Peace Fellowship* U.S. http://scoville.org
Hertog Foundation Summer Policy Fellowships U.S. https://hertogfoundation.org/our-programs
IDA Summer Associates Program U.S. https://www.ida.org/en/CareersAtIDA/SummerAssociates
Lewis-Burke Associates LLC Summer Internship U.S. http://www.lewis-burke.com/internship
Lloyd V. Berkner Space Policy Internships U.S. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/SSB/SSB_052239
MIT Washington, DC Summer Internship Program U.S. http://web.mit.edu/summerwash/about/index.html
* Programs open to applicants beyond STEM disciplines.
65
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
NAS Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellowships
U.S.http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/policyfellows/PGA_161011
NCSE Science Policy Internships U.S. https://www.ncseglobal.org/employment
NIH Office of Intramural Training and Education: multiple programs, some with policy components
U.S. https://www.training.nih.gov/fellowships_at_the_nih
NSF Summer Scholars Internship Program U.S. http://nsf.gov/od/oia/activities/interns/index.jsp#ssip
Population Reference Bureau Policy Communication Fellows
U.S.http://www.prb.org/About/ProgramsProjects/Policy-Communication-Fellows
Potomac Institute for Policy Studies Internship Program
U.S. http://www.potomacinstitute.org/about-us/internships
RAND Graduate Student Summer Associate Program U.S. http://www.rand.org/about/edu_op/fellowships/gsap.html
Research!America Science Policy Internships U.S. http://www.researchamerica.org/sciencepolicyinternship
Society of Physics Internships U.S. https://www.spsnational.org/programs/internships
UCSF Graduate Student Internships for Career Exploration Program
U.S. http://gsice.ucsf.edu/info-students
Udall Foundation Native American Congressional Internship*
U.S. http://www.udall.gov/OurPrograms/Internship/Internship.aspx
University of California Science Policy Internship Program
U.S. http://ucdc.edu/node/769
University of Virginia Washington Policy Internship U.S.http://www.eands.virginia.edu/portfolio-item/washington-policy-interns
U.S. Government Internship Program* U.S.https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/hiring-information/students-recent-graduates/#url=graduates
U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology
U.S. https://science.house.gov/contact
The Washington Center Academic Internship Program* U.S. http://www.twc.edu/internships
Washington Internships for Students of Engineering U.S. http://www.wise-intern.org
Woodrow Wilson Center Science & Technology Innovation Program Policy Internships
U.S.http://woodrow.org/news/grant-new-higher-education-policy-fellowship-program
Woodrow Wilson Higher Education Policy Fellowship U.S.http://woodrow.org/news/grant-new-higher-education-policy-fellowship-program
Woodrow Wilson Center Internships U.S. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/internships
Women’s Policy Research Institute Mariam K. Chamberlain Fellowship in Women and Public Policy
U.S. http://www.iwpr.org/about/fellowships
* Programs open to applicants beyond STEM disciplines.
66
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
* Programs open to applicants beyond STEM disciplines.
DETAILS AND ROTATIONS Country Website
Recruitment of Policy Leaders Program* Canadahttp://www.psc-cfp.gc.ca/sas-sde/stf-dot/prgrm/rpl-prl/index-eng.htm
Civil Service in Government for Scientists and Engineers U.K.https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/civil-service-government-science-engineering
UCL Postgraduate Secondments to Whitehall U.K.http://www.ucl.ac.uk/european-institute/news-repository/pg-secondments
Government Office for Science U.K.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/312972/14-797-gse-training1.pdf
Health and Human Services Emerging Leaders Program U.S. http://hhsu.learning.hhs.gov/elp
National Science Foundation Rotator Program U.S. https://www.nsf.gov/careers/rotator
National Science Foundation Visiting Scientist, Engineer, and Educator (VSEE) Program
U.S. https://www.nsf.gov/careers/rotator/vsee.jsp
Office of Personnel Management Intergovernmental Personnel Act
U.S.https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/hiring-information/intergovernment-personnel-act
Office of Personnel Management Pathways Program U.S.https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/hiring-information/students-recent-graduates/#url=Overview
Patent and Trademark Office Edison Visiting Scholar Program
U.S.https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-programs-and-awards/edison-visiting-scholar-program
PAIRING SCHEMES Country Website
Science meets Parliament Australiahttp://scienceandtechnologyaustralia.org.au/event/science-meets-parliament-2017
Members of European Parliament (MEP)—Scientists Pairing Scheme
EUhttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/cms/home/activities/mepscientist
Members of Parliament—Members of the Academy of Sciences—Young researchers
Francehttp://www.academie-sciences.fr/archivage_site/en/pairing_2012.pdf
The Society of Scientists and Parliament Members TUTKAS
Finlandhttps://www.eduskunta.fi/EN/kansanedustajat/verkostot/Pages/default.aspx
British Ecological Society Parliamentary Shadowing Scheme
U.K. http://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/policy/opportunities/parliamentary-shadowing-scheme
CSaP Policy Fellowships U.K. http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/policy-fellowships/policy-fellows
The Royal Society Pairing Scheme U.K. https://royalsociety.org/grants-schemes-awards/pairing-scheme
UCL Public Policy placements U.K.https://www.ucl.ac.uk/public-policy/for-researchers/policy-placements
Spanish “Ambassadors for Science” program U.K.-Spainhttps://www.fecyt.es/en/noticia/first-shadowing-programme-between-scientists-and-diplomats-starts-london
67
C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S
AAAS American Association for the Advancement of Science, U.S.
AACP American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, U.S.
AAS American Astronomical Society, U.S.
AAU Association of American Universities, U.S.
ACA Acoustical Society of America, U.S.
ACS American Chemical Society, U.S.
AERA American Educational Research Association, U.S.
ACLS American Council of Learned Societies, U.S.
AGI American Geosciences Institute, U.S.
AGU American Geophysical Union, U.S.
AIBS American Institute of Biological Sciences, U.S.
AIP American Institute of Physics, U.S.
AMS American Mathematical Society, U.S.
AMS American Meteorological Society, U.S.
AND American Academy of Nutrition, U.S.
ANS American Nuclear Society, U.S.
ANU Australian National University, Australia
APA American Psychological Association, U.S.
APAICS Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies
APHA American Public Health Association, U.S.
APLU Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, U.S.
APS American Physical Society, U.S.
APSA American Political Science Association, U.S.
APTR Association for Prevention Teaching and Research, U.S.
ASA American Society of Agronomy, U.S.
ASA American Society of Anesthesiologists, U.S.
ASA American Sociological Association, U.S.
ASBMB American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, U.S.
ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Asia
ASH American Society of Hematology, U.S.
ASHG American Society of Human Genetics, U.S.
ASM American Society for Microbiology, U.S.
ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers
ASPPH Association of Schools of Public Health, U.S.
AVMA American Veterinary Medical Association, U.S.
BPS Biophysical Society, U.S.
BSCES Boston Society of Civil Engineers Section, U.S.
CDC Centers for Disease Control, U.S.
CSaP Center for Science and Policy, Cambridge, U.K.
CSSA Crop Science Society of America, U.S.
DHS Department of Homeland Security, U.S.
DOD Department of Defense, U.S.
DOE Department of Energy, U.S.
DST Department of Science & Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India
ESA Entomological Society of America, U.S.
EPA Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.
FDA Food and Drug Administration, U.S.
GSA Geological Society of America, U.S.
IDA Institute for Defense Analyses, U.S.
IEEE USA Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers U.S.A, U.S.
ION Institute of Navigation, U.S.
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S.
MRS Materials Research Society, U.S.
NAS National Academy of Sciences, U.S.
NCHS National Center for Health Statistics, U.S.
NCSE National Council for Science and the Environment, U.S.
NERC Natural Environment Research Council, U.K.
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.
NIH National Institutes of Health, U.S.
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.
NSF National Science Foundation, U.S.
OSA The Optical Society, U.S.
POST Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, U.K.
SAE Society for Automotive Engineers, U.S.
SFN Society for Neuroscience, U.S.
SHINE Strengthening Health Systems through Interprofessional Development Education, U.S.
SME Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, U.S.
SPIE International Society for Optics and Photonics, U.S.
SPSSI Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, U.S.
SRCD Society for Research in Child Development, U.S.
SSSA Soil Science Society of America, U.S.
STPI Science and Technology Policy Institute, U.S.
TMS The Mining, Metals, and Materials Society, U.S.
UCL University College London, U.K.
UCSF University of California, San Francisco, U.S.
USAID U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S.
Glossary Of Acronyms
The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
is the world’s largest general scientific society and publisher of
the Science family of journals (www.sciencemag.org). Science has
the largest paid circulation of any peer-reviewed general science
journal in the world. AAAS was founded in 1848 and includes
nearly 250 affiliated societies and academies of sciences, serving
10 million individuals. The non-profit AAAS is open to all and
fulfills its mission to “advance science and serve society” through
initiatives in science policy, international programs, science
education, public engagement, and more. For information about
AAAS go to www.aaas.org.
aaas.org/GlobalSciencePolicy
@AAAS Fellowships
@SciDip
facebook.com/AAASSandTPolicyFellowships
facebook.com/sciencediplomacy
PHOTO CREDITS:
Cover: AAAS-TWAS Summer Course on Science Diplomacy, Trieste, Italy. Credit: Demis Albertacci.
Chapter 1: Year of Light Reception at World Science Forum 2015, Budapest. Credit: Mudra Laszlo, Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
Chapter 2: Global Young Academy Annual General Meeting 2016, The Netherlands. Credit: Uttam Babu Shrestha.
Chapter 3: Hungarian Parliament. Credit: Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
Chapter 4: Global Young Academy Annual General Meeting 2014, Santiago, Chile. Credit: Uttam Babu Shrestha.
chapter 5: AAAS-TWAS Summer Course on Science Diplomacy, Trieste, Italy. Credit: Demis Albertacci.
Chapter 6: Markus Pfaff, Shutterstock.