Abstract:
Many members of the research community intend to contribute to public policy with their expertise, but don’t know how. Fortunately, they can benefit from ‘science to policy’ training or coaching programs to help them acquire skills, connections and experience. The panelists have tested two such training programs in Canada, S2PA from Evidence for Democracy and L’Interface from Fonds de recherche du Québec/Acfas, and will share their critical recommendation: will they rate them with two, three, four stars? Then, the creators of the two Canadian programs and one Finnish training course will comment on the objectives and expected results of these initiatives.

Summary of Conversations

The panel explored science policy training programs, emphasizing the need to bridge the gap between scientific expertise and governmental decision-making. Discussions highlighted the importance of equipping researchers with skills in science communication, policy analysis, and understanding governmental processes. There was a focus on tailoring training to those with limited policy experience, and the benefits of working on tangible policy ideas during training were noted. Participants valued learning about communication channels and actionable policy creation, while priorities for program development included linking science communication skills to policy outcomes and engaging scientists in public policy. Initiatives aim to serve the university community and ensure scientific data informs public policy, adapting training to individual needs and practical application.

Take Away Messages/ Current Status of Challenges

• There is a recognized gap in science policy training, particularly for early-career researchers lacking policy experience.
• Many science graduates lack knowledge of governmental processes and policy-making.
• Existing training programs often need to balance foundational science communication skills with more specialized policy engagement strategies.
• A key challenge involves transitioning researchers from communicating science to influencing policy outcomes.
• The need to make programs accessible and lower the barriers for participation for researchers.
• Securing sustainable funding and demonstrating the value proposition of science policy training to university administrators remains a hurdle.
• Discussions around the neutrality of data and the role of researchers in interpreting evidence for policy audiences are ongoing.
• Windows of opportunity for engaging with policymakers may vary, necessitating a strong foundation in public engagement to mobilize community support for issues.

Recommendations/Next Steps

• Incorporate policy idea workshopping to provide participants with tangible outputs.
• Design training programs that start with familiar science communication skills and gradually introduce more complex policy concepts.
• Focus on skill-building exercises, like writing briefing notes, to make policy engagement more accessible.
• Establish networking sessions connecting trainees with science policy professionals to foster career pathways.
• Advocate for the reinstatement of programs and dedicated systems to give more career opportunities.
• Explore opportunities for licensing science policy training programs to universities to integrate them into existing curricula.
• Emphasize the importance of diversity and inclusion in the backgrounds of program participants to generate more robust discussions.
• Promote effective science communication across disciplines to improve the translation of complex ideas for broader audiences.