Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > A collaboratively-derived science-policy resear...

Research

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Published

Standard

A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda. / Sutherland, W.J.; Bellingan, L.; Bellingham, J.R. et al.
In: PLoS ONE, Vol. 7, No. 3, e31824, 2012.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/Magazine › Journal article › peer-review

Harvard

Sutherland, WJ, Bellingan, L, Bellingham, JR, Blackstock, JJ, Bloomfield, RM, Bravo, M, Cadman, VM, Cleevely, DD, Clements, A, Cohen, AS, Cope, DR, Daemmrich, AA, Devecchi, C, Anadon, LD, Denegri, S, Doubleday, R, Dusic, NR, Evans, RJ, Feng, WY, Godfray, HCJ, Harris, P, Hartley, SE, Hester, AJ, Holmes, J, Hughes, A, Hulme, M, Irwin, C, Jennings, RC, Kass, GS, Littlejohns, P, Marteau, TM, McKee, G, Millstone, EP, Nuttall, WJ, Owens, S, Parker, MM, Pearson, S, Petts, J, Ploszek, R, Pullin, AS, Reid, G, Richards, KS, Robinson, JG, Shaxson, L, Sierra, L, Smith, BG, Spiegelhalter, DJ, Stilgoe, J, Stirling, A, Tyler, CP, Winickoff, DE & Zimmern, RL 2012, 'A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda', PLoS ONE, vol. 7, no. 3, e31824. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031824

APA

Sutherland, W. J., Bellingan, L., Bellingham, J. R., Blackstock, J. J., Bloomfield, R. M., Bravo, M., Cadman, V. M., Cleevely, D. D., Clements, A., Cohen, A. S., Cope, D. R., Daemmrich, A. A., Devecchi, C., Anadon, L. D., Denegri, S., Doubleday, R., Dusic, N. R., Evans, R. J., Feng, W. Y., ... Zimmern, R. L. (2012). A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda. PLoS ONE, 7(3), Article e31824. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0031824

Vancouver

Sutherland WJ, Bellingan L, Bellingham JR, Blackstock JJ, Bloomfield RM, Bravo M et al. A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(3):e31824. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0031824

Author

Sutherland, W.J. ; Bellingan, L. ; Bellingham, J.R. et al. / A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda. In: PLoS ONE. 2012 ; Vol. 7, No. 3.

Bibtex

@article{d02be82375314888a1549173c523a1fb,
title = "A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda",
abstract = "The need for policy makers to understand science and for scientists to understand policy processes is widely recognised. However, the science-policy relationship is sometimes difficult and occasionally dysfunctional; it is also increasingly visible, because it must deal with contentious issues, or itself becomes a matter of public controversy, or both. We suggest that identifying key unanswered questions on the relationship between science and policy will catalyse and focus research in this field. To identify these questions, a collaborative procedure was employed with 52 participants selected to cover a wide range of experience in both science and policy, including people from government, non-governmental organisations, academia and industry. These participants consulted with colleagues and submitted 239 questions. An initial round of voting was followed by a workshop in which 40 of the most important questions were identified by further discussion and voting. The resulting list includes questions about the effectiveness of science-based decision-making structures; the nature and legitimacy of expertise; the consequences of changes such as increasing transparency; choices among different sources of evidence; the implications of new means of characterising and representing uncertainties; and ways in which policy and political processes affect what counts as authoritative evidence. We expect this exercise to identify important theoretical questions and to help improve the mutual understanding and effectiveness of those working at the interface of science and policy.",
author = "W.J. Sutherland and L. Bellingan and J.R. Bellingham and J.J. Blackstock and R.M. Bloomfield and M. Bravo and V.M. Cadman and D.D. Cleevely and A. Clements and A.S. Cohen and D.R. Cope and A.A. Daemmrich and C. Devecchi and L.D. Anadon and S. Denegri and R. Doubleday and N.R. Dusic and R.J. Evans and W.Y. Feng and H.C.J. Godfray and P. Harris and S.E. Hartley and A.J. Hester and J. Holmes and A. Hughes and M. Hulme and C. Irwin and R.C. Jennings and G.S. Kass and P. Littlejohns and T.M. Marteau and G. McKee and E.P. Millstone and W.J. Nuttall and S. Owens and M.M. Parker and S. Pearson and J. Petts and R. Ploszek and A.S. Pullin and G. Reid and K.S. Richards and J.G. Robinson and L. Shaxson and L. Sierra and B.G. Smith and D.J. Spiegelhalter and J. Stilgoe and A. Stirling and C.P. Tyler and D.E. Winickoff and R.L. Zimmern",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0031824",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
journal = "PLoS ONE",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science",
number = "3",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - A collaboratively-derived science-policy research agenda

AU - Sutherland, W.J.

AU - Bellingan, L.

AU - Bellingham, J.R.

AU - Blackstock, J.J.

AU - Bloomfield, R.M.

AU - Bravo, M.

AU - Cadman, V.M.

AU - Cleevely, D.D.

AU - Clements, A.

AU - Cohen, A.S.

AU - Cope, D.R.

AU - Daemmrich, A.A.

AU - Devecchi, C.

AU - Anadon, L.D.

AU - Denegri, S.

AU - Doubleday, R.

AU - Dusic, N.R.

AU - Evans, R.J.

AU - Feng, W.Y.

AU - Godfray, H.C.J.

AU - Harris, P.

AU - Hartley, S.E.

AU - Hester, A.J.

AU - Holmes, J.

AU - Hughes, A.

AU - Hulme, M.

AU - Irwin, C.

AU - Jennings, R.C.

AU - Kass, G.S.

AU - Littlejohns, P.

AU - Marteau, T.M.

AU - McKee, G.

AU - Millstone, E.P.

AU - Nuttall, W.J.

AU - Owens, S.

AU - Parker, M.M.

AU - Pearson, S.

AU - Petts, J.

AU - Ploszek, R.

AU - Pullin, A.S.

AU - Reid, G.

AU - Richards, K.S.

AU - Robinson, J.G.

AU - Shaxson, L.

AU - Sierra, L.

AU - Smith, B.G.

AU - Spiegelhalter, D.J.

AU - Stilgoe, J.

AU - Stirling, A.

AU - Tyler, C.P.

AU - Winickoff, D.E.

AU - Zimmern, R.L.

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - The need for policy makers to understand science and for scientists to understand policy processes is widely recognised. However, the science-policy relationship is sometimes difficult and occasionally dysfunctional; it is also increasingly visible, because it must deal with contentious issues, or itself becomes a matter of public controversy, or both. We suggest that identifying key unanswered questions on the relationship between science and policy will catalyse and focus research in this field. To identify these questions, a collaborative procedure was employed with 52 participants selected to cover a wide range of experience in both science and policy, including people from government, non-governmental organisations, academia and industry. These participants consulted with colleagues and submitted 239 questions. An initial round of voting was followed by a workshop in which 40 of the most important questions were identified by further discussion and voting. The resulting list includes questions about the effectiveness of science-based decision-making structures; the nature and legitimacy of expertise; the consequences of changes such as increasing transparency; choices among different sources of evidence; the implications of new means of characterising and representing uncertainties; and ways in which policy and political processes affect what counts as authoritative evidence. We expect this exercise to identify important theoretical questions and to help improve the mutual understanding and effectiveness of those working at the interface of science and policy.

AB - The need for policy makers to understand science and for scientists to understand policy processes is widely recognised. However, the science-policy relationship is sometimes difficult and occasionally dysfunctional; it is also increasingly visible, because it must deal with contentious issues, or itself becomes a matter of public controversy, or both. We suggest that identifying key unanswered questions on the relationship between science and policy will catalyse and focus research in this field. To identify these questions, a collaborative procedure was employed with 52 participants selected to cover a wide range of experience in both science and policy, including people from government, non-governmental organisations, academia and industry. These participants consulted with colleagues and submitted 239 questions. An initial round of voting was followed by a workshop in which 40 of the most important questions were identified by further discussion and voting. The resulting list includes questions about the effectiveness of science-based decision-making structures; the nature and legitimacy of expertise; the consequences of changes such as increasing transparency; choices among different sources of evidence; the implications of new means of characterising and representing uncertainties; and ways in which policy and political processes affect what counts as authoritative evidence. We expect this exercise to identify important theoretical questions and to help improve the mutual understanding and effectiveness of those working at the interface of science and policy.

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0031824

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0031824

M3 - Journal article

VL - 7

JO - PLoS ONE

JF - PLoS ONE

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 3

M1 - e31824

ER -