Importance of Working at the Intersection of Science and Policy

© Brandon Cole

Black Rockfish schooling in Bull Kelp.

Creating durable solutions to pressing environmental challenges may often involve more than a one-way dialogue between scientists and decision-makers. Indeed, expert connectors may be able to facilitate a whole spectrum of ways to connect science and policy productively.

In a recent paper published in the journal Science and Public Policy, staff of the Lenfest Ocean Program offer an example of how some of these connectors work. Led by Angela Bednarek, Ph.D., the authors explain the Program’s own “full-time, full-spectrum” approach to connecting science and policy. The paper describes how full-time professionals, known as science-policy intermediaries, can add value across a spectrum of activities necessary to make the connection: they can identify and support policy-relevant research, connect researchers to users of research, translate results for specific issues, and help scientists engage with policy audiences.

Bednarek and colleagues write that an intermediary “can leverage a scientist’s expertise to make meaningful contributions to public discourse.” To show how science-policy intermediaries work, the team uses three examples from peer-reviewed research supported by the Lenfest Ocean Program:

• Filling a gap: In 2006, the Program noted that little was known about how to sustainably manage harvest of bull kelp in Washington and Oregon and supported research to address that issue. Program staff translated the research results into a straightforward message for policymakers: that harvest of the top of the plant prevents reproduction. This message contributed to Oregon’s decision to put a moratorium on this activity.
• Informing a complex discussion: In 2008, Program staff consulted with numerous experts and stakeholders and decided the time was right to investigate the ecological impact of catch shares, a fisheries management tool that allocates a percentage of the total catch to individuals or groups of fishermen. Catch shares had been in place for many years in some places, and there was disagreement over whether they led to more sustainable management. The Program supported a project to analyze ecological changes in fisheries that had been managed with catch shares for several years or longer. The results showed an effect on the variability of fish abundance but no effect on average abundance. To connect these complex results to ongoing deliberations about catch shares, Program staff arranged for in-person briefings by the lead scientist at the headquarters of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
• A big effort on small fish: Between 2008 and 2012, the Program supported a task force of 13 scientists to provide guidance on managing forage fish (small fish that serve as critical prey for seabirds, marine mammals, and larger fish). This project was initiated based on analysis of the scientific literature about forage fish ecology and extensive consultations with policy experts, scientists, and resource managers. Program staff prepared for the final report by crafting a strategy to engage with a wide variety of stakeholders interested in forage fish management. After the task force published its report, staff worked with task force members to communicate with policymakers and experts through in-person meetings and briefings, and to broader audiences through publications and media outreach. The project has led to increased attention to forage fish, and several recent policy changes appear to have included task force recommendations for precautionary management. For example, the Pacific Fishery Management Council prohibited new fisheries for forage fish unless it can be demonstrated that they won’t harm existing fisheries.

This approach is far from a universal solution, but the authors hope it will provide lessons for others working to connect science and policy.