11

Can scientists and policy-makers work together?

Bernard Choi, PhDBernard.Choi@phac-aspc.gc.ca

Senior Research Scientist, PHACAdjunct Professor, University of Ottawa

Invited Presentation for Panel Discussion, Carleton University, February 2, 2012

2

Evidence based Policy

• In theory, ‘‘evidence based policy making’’ should work well.

• Scientists produce evidence, which policy makers then use for decisions. In return, policy makers provide scientists with evidence requirements and resources for research.

• Evidence Policy

3

4

Scientist Policy Maker

Target

(3 P’s)

•Publications•Patents•Professorships

•Policy•Practice•People

Language Greek letters,

mathematical

symbols

Acronyms, which

are defined by

other acronyms

Time

perception

The longer time

to research, the

better the quality

Answers are

always needed

instantlySource: Choi BCK, Pang T, Lin V, Puska P, Sherman G, Goddard M, Ackland MJ, Sainsbury P, Stachenko S, Morrison H, Clottey C, 2005. Can scientists and policy-makers work together? Jounal of Epidemiology and Community Health 59: 632-637

5

Scientist Policy Maker

Career

path

Spend their entire

research career in

one narrow area

Move on quickly

from managing

one file to another

Joke The way to live

forever is to find a

research question

so important that

one cannot die

without finding the

answer, then never

work on it

I have made up

my mind, don’t

confuse me with

the facts

6

There are success stories of scientists and policy makers working together

• Knowledge brokerage• Doing science within government• Grant funding requiring dissemination

strategies• One-page policy briefs

7

8

Table 1 Facilitators and barriers to use of research by policy makers, identified in a systematic review of 24 interview studies

Facilitators Number of studiesPersonal contact between scientists and policy makers 13Timeliness and relevance of the research 13Research that includes a summary with clear recommendations 11Research that confirms current policy or endorses self interest 6Good quality research 6Community pressure or client demand for research 4Inclusion of effectiveness data 3Total studies 24

Barriers Number of studiesAbsence of personal contact between scientists and policy makers 11Lack of timeliness and relevance of research 9Mutual mistrust between scientists and policy makers 8Power and budget struggles 7Poor quality of research 6Political instability or high turnover of policy making staff 5Total studies 24

Source: Innvaer S, Vist G, Trommald M, et al. Health policy makers’ perceptions of their use of evidence: a systematic review. J Health Serv Res Policy 2002;7:239–44

9

Questions

1. Should there be incentives for scientists or

policy makers if they take the initiative to

build a dialogue with their counterparts?

2. Should there be knowledge brokers to go

between scientists and policy makers?

3. Should there be organisational capacity-

building interventions?

10

Questions

4. Should research be defined far more broadly than the biomedical community conventionally believes?

5. Should the knowledge transfer starting point be re-defined? Do most of the current ‘‘research to policy’’ efforts focus on the wrong ‘‘starting point’’ (i.e. researchers)?

6. Should the accountability to peer reviewed journal editors extend to policy makers in the government sector?

11

Questions

7. Should it be recognised that scientists and policy makers are not equal partners, and therefore additional work must be done to promote their dialogue?

8. Should it be acknowledged that it is too simplistic to think that policy making could ever be purely or perhaps even largely based on scientific evidence?

12

Further Reading1. Choi BCK, McQueen DV, Rootman I, 2003. Bridging the gap between scientists and decision

makers. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 57:918.2. Choi BCK, 2004. Public health practitioners can learn from the weather forecasters. Journal of

Epidemiology and Community Health, 58: 450.3. Choi BCK, Orlova A, Issa N, Marsh M, Morrison H, 2004. Two information dissemination approaches for

public health decision makers: Encyclopaedia and fire alarm. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 58: 634.

4. Choi BCK, 2004. Modulated release of health risk information to the general public with the use of mnemonics. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 58: 809.

5. Choi BCK, Pak AWP, Choi JCL, Choi ECL, 2004. Health proverbs. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 58: 1010.

6. Choi BCK, 2005. Understanding the basic principles of knowledge translation. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 59: 93.

7. Choi BCK, Corber SJ, McQueen DV, Bonita R, Zevallos JC, Douglas KA, Barceló A, Gonzalez M, Robles S, Stachenko S, Hall M, Champagne BM, Lindner MC, de Salazar LM, Granero R, Soto de Laurido LE, Lum W, Torres RE, Warren CW, Mokdad AH, 2005. Enhancing regional capacity in chronic disease surveillance in the Americas. Pan American Journal of Public Health 17: 130-141.

8. Choi BCK, 2005 Innovative ideas needed for timely and effective public health information dissemination. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 59: 259.

9. Choi BCK, Pang T, Lin V, Puska P, Sherman G, Goddard M, Ackland MJ, Sainsbury P, Stachenko S, Morrison H, Clottey C, 2005. Can scientists and policy-makers work together? Jounal of Epidemiology and Community Health 59: 632-637

10. Choi BCK, 2005. Twelve essentials of science-based policy. Preventing Chronic Diseases [serial online] Vol 2 (No 4) 2005 Oct

13

Further Reading11. Choi BCK, Pak AWP, 2006. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health

research, services, education and policy: 1. Definitions, objectives, and evidence of effectiveness. Clinical and Investigative Medicine, 29: 351-364.

12. Choi BCK, Morrison H, Wong T, Wu J, Yan Y-P, 2007. Bringing chronic disease epidemiology and infectious disease epidemiology back together. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 61: 832.

13. Choi BCK, Pak AWP, 2007. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 2. Promotors, barriers, and strategies of enhancement. Clinical and Investigative Medicine, 30: E224-E232.

14. Choi BCK, Pak AWP, 2008. Multidisciplinarity, interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity in health research, services, education and policy: 3. Discipline, inter-discipline distance, and selection of discipline. Clinical and Investigative Medicine 31: E41-E48.

15. Choi BCK, McQueen DV, Puska P, Douglas KA, Ackland M, Campostrini S, Barceló A, Stachenko S, Mokdad AH, Granero R, Corber SJ, Valleron A-J, Skinner HA, Potemkina R, Lindner MC, Zakus D, de Salazar LM, Pak AWP, Ansari Z, Zevallos JC, Gonzalez M, Flahault A, Torres RE, 2008. Enhancing global capacity in the surveillance, prevention, and control of chronic diseases: Seven themes to consider and build upon. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 62: 391-397.

16. Tang K-C, Choi BCK, Beagle R, 2008. Grading of evidence of the effectiveness of health promotion interventions. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62: 832-834.

17. Choi BCK, 2008. Understanding the basic principles of programme evaluation. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 62: 946.

18. Choi BCK, Gupta A, Ward B, 2009. Good thinking: Six ways to bridge the gap between scientists and policy makers. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 63: 179-180.