Bridging the Divide Between Labs and Legislation
In an era defined by complex global challenges—from climate change to pandemics and artificial intelligence—the intersection of science and policy has become increasingly critical. Imagine a world where groundbreaking research seamlessly informs public policy, where legislators understand scientific uncertainty, and where scientists can effectively communicate their findings to decision-makers. This vision drives the emergence of a new profession: the science-policy specialist. These professionals work at the highest levels of government and international organizations, presenting climate agendas to the press, briefing global leaders on breakthrough technologies, and helping diverse communities access research funding 4 .
The need for this interface has never been more urgent. As U.S. congressional committees and think tanks steadily increase their use of scientific references in policy documents—growing from 20% in 1995 to over 35% by 2020—the stakes for effectively bridging these two worlds have never been higher . This article explores how the next generation of science policy-makers is transforming this landscape, creating innovative tools and approaches to ensure that policy decisions are informed by the best available evidence.
Using scientific evidence to inform policy decisions on issues like climate change, public health, and technology regulation.
Creating policies that support scientific research through funding, infrastructure, and regulatory frameworks.
Science policy operates in two complementary directions: "science for policy" and "policy for science." The former involves using scientific evidence to inform policy decisions, while the latter focuses on creating policies that support scientific research through funding, infrastructure, and regulations. For decades, the dominant model relied on chief scientific advisors—accomplished scientists appointed to advise governments based on their personal expertise and credibility 6 . The problem with this approach, as experts have noted, is that we shouldn't expect these individuals to be "lone heroes with access to all the answers" while simultaneously protecting science from political influences 6 .
I wanted to go directly to the source to understand how decisions are made and how research can genuinely support that process.
— Professor Mattie Toma, founder of the Policymakers Lab at the University of Warwick 7
Until recently, neither scientists nor policymakers received formal training for this interface. Scientists aren't trained to communicate with policymakers, and policymakers aren't routinely trained to understand scientific processes or assess evidence 6 . This gap has real-world consequences, from the pandemic response to climate policy debates.
Reliance on chief scientific advisors as "lone heroes" with personal expertise and credibility.
Development of specialized training programs for science-policy professionals.
Integrated systems where research is embedded in decision-making processes.
Innovative educational programs are emerging to address this need. These courses teach future science-policy specialists skills in critical thinking, scientific literacy, risk communication, and understanding governance structures. As one educator noted: "We need policy makers who are trained in scientific literacy, even if they don't have a background in science. We don't expect them to become experts, but rather to be able to navigate through misinformation and disinformation, assess different levels of evidence, identify experts, and use science as one of the many tools in the policy maker's decision-making process" 6 .
Groundbreaking research led by Dashun Wang at Northwestern University's Kellogg School of Management has revealed both encouraging and concerning trends in how policymakers use science . Their study, published in Science, analyzed tens of thousands of congressional committee reports, hearing transcripts, and think tank documents published between 1995 and 2021, examining 424,199 scientific publications cited in these documents.
Wang and his team employed a sophisticated mixed-methods approach:
They compiled a massive dataset of 49,345 congressional documents and 191,118 policy documents from 121 U.S.-based think tanks .
Each scientific reference in these documents was identified and linked to a comprehensive database of scientific publications .
Documents were associated with Republican or Democratic sources based on the party controlling the committee or the think tank's political orientation .
The team used a deep-learning algorithm to plot cited scientific papers as points in space, grouped by topic, allowing visualization of distinct clusters of science referenced by different political affiliations .
The study revealed several striking patterns about how science is used in policymaking:
Perhaps most notably, the research uncovered a significant partisan divide in the type of science being referenced. When Republican and Democratic policymakers addressed the same topics, they cited largely different scientific papers. In one telling example, left-leaning Urban Institute and right-leaning Employment Policies Institute both published documents on the effects of raising the minimum wage with nearly identical titles. Out of 62 scientific papers cited between them, only one paper was referenced by both organizations .
The trust survey component of the research revealed a dramatic confidence gap:
| Group | Trust Scientists to Create Unbiased, Accurate Knowledge | Rate National Academies of Sciences as "Very Trustworthy" | Rate American Association for Advancement of Science as "Very Trustworthy" |
|---|---|---|---|
| Democrats | 96% | 61.2% | 40.7% |
| Republicans | 63.7% | 22.8% | 8.2% |
When partisans are using different sets of science and have different understandings of the state of the world, that can potentially cause problems for effective democratic governance and policymaking.
— Furnas, study author
The next generation of science-policy specialists doesn't just identify problems—they're developing innovative solutions. Here are key tools and approaches they're using to bridge the science-policy divide:
Open science involves making research outputs freely available to everyone. As outlined by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, key components include open access publication, research preregistration, open data and materials, and open source software 1 . The Aligning Science Across Parkinson's (ASAP) initiative exemplifies this approach with its comprehensive Open Science Policy requiring data, code, and protocols to be deposited in community-recognized repositories 8 . These practices facilitate better collaboration and more robust, replicable research.
Organizations like the Group on Earth Observations (GEO) demonstrate effective science-policy interfaces. GEO's Global Earth Observation System of Systems (GEOSS) portal was designed according to open science best practices to facilitate data sharing that advances the UN 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement 1 .
Next-generation specialists are creating formats to make evidence more accessible to time-pressed policymakers. Professor Mattie Toma's research found that policymakers prefer two-page briefs over lengthy academic papers 7 . Her Policymakers Lab is testing tools like impact calculators and side-by-side program comparisons to reduce complexity and improve evidence uptake 7 .
Initiatives like the Policymakers Lab connect researchers with policymakers through short, targeted surveys. This approach respects policymakers' time while generating valuable insights. The lab has already engaged policymakers from 16 different countries, sparking unexpected conversations and collaborations 7 .
New courses are teaching both scientists and policymakers the necessary skills for effective collaboration. Scientists learn about governance structures, law, and regulation processes, while policymakers develop scientific literacy and critical thinking skills to navigate misinformation and assess evidence 6 .
Effective science policy requires mastering different communication styles. As Haynes and colleagues documented after interviewing civil servants, the most valued competencies include the ability to synthesize evidence concisely and act as a broker rather than an advocate 6 . This means distinguishing between providing evidence and advocating for specific policies.
The next generation of science policy-makers represents a profound shift in how society bridges research and decision-making. No longer relying on lone scientific advisors, this new paradigm embraces trained professionals who specialize in translation, collaboration, and evidence synthesis. While challenges remain—particularly in navigating political polarization—the tools and approaches being developed offer promising pathways forward.
In some sense, the relationship between the two frontiers of science and politics is closer than ever.
— Dashun Wang
The increasing complexity of global challenges demands nothing less than a sophisticated, evidence-informed approach to policymaking. The next generation of science policy-makers is building the infrastructure to make this possible, creating systems that allow research to genuinely support decision-making processes.
We're building toward a norm where research is embedded in decision-making.
— Mattie Toma 7
What remains clear is that the future of effective governance depends on our ability to foster these connections—ensuring that policy is informed by the best available science, and that science remains responsive to societal needs. This vision, increasingly becoming reality, offers hope for addressing the complex challenges that lie ahead for our interconnected world.