"The need for a system of evidence-based policymaking is such a new topic that it hasn't fully reached the awareness of politicians yet," says Andres Koppel, an expert who contributed to Estonia's report on evidence-based policymaking. In simple terms, politicians are well-versed in how to craft research policy, but not necessarily in how to create policies based on research. "They know how to fund and evaluate research and how to appoint researchers to academic positions. But the other side — how to bring expert advice into policymaking — is still relatively new," Koppel explains.

Estonia's report on evidence-based policymaking was recently completed as part of a two-year international project led by the European Commission's Joint Research Centre (JRC) and the OECD. The study was conducted simultaneously in seven countries — Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Greece and the Netherlands — with input from local experts. In Estonia, the study was commissioned by the Government Office, the Ministry of Education and Research and the Estonian Research Council. The report also includes recommendations on how to improve evidence-based policymaking. "The work has been delivered to the commissioners. How the report's findings will be implemented is up to them," Koppel notes.

According to him, the analysis highlighted one of Estonia's strengths: both government officials and universities recognize the importance of evidence-based policymaking. "However, a significant shortcoming is that this understanding hasn't reached the highest levels — ministers, secretaries general and, unfortunately, sometimes even deputy secretaries general," he concedes. The biggest challenge going forward, he says, will be keeping this topic on the radar of top leaders, especially during budget cuts.

Knowledge-based policy advisory system needs a leader

The new report outlines four groups of recommendations for advancing evidence-based policymaking in Estonia.

The primary recommendation, found in the first section, focused on leadership. "Ideally, there should be an institution responsible for coordinating, analyzing and evaluating the science advisory system," explains Andres Koppel. The logical choice for this role would be the Government Office, but due to budget constraints, this idea did not gain support. As a result, the report proposes reforming the Research, Development and Innovation Coordination Council to transform it into the leading body for science advice.

The second group of recommendations concerned the organization of scientific advisers' work. "The analysis showed that establishing these positions has been one of the biggest success stories of Estonia's advisory system. However, further success will require effort. The tasks assigned to advisers vary greatly across different ministries," Koppel says.

Although some scientific advisers work closely with leadership, others handle unrelated tasks, such as public procurement or human resources. "One recommendation was to standardize the positions of advisers. Better methods should be adopted and these people should be utilized appropriately so that their skills and knowledge are put to the best use," Koppel explains.

The third set of recommendations focused on the integration of science advice into ministries' workflows. This included the need to raise the qualifications of ministry staff, strengthen their policymaking and strategic planning capabilities and foster closer contact between policymakers and the research community. "The flow of knowledge is not one-way — it involves multiple stakeholders. It's not as simple as a scientist advising a minister; intermediaries who understand both sides must be in place," Koppel clarifies.

The final cluster of recommendations addressed knowledge creators — scientists, research institutions, academies, universities and think tanks. "It's important that research institutions encourage scientists to engage with policymakers and that providing science advice is recognized alongside academic achievements when evaluating researchers' work," Koppel notes. He also highlights the need for improving policymakers' understanding of research-based advising.

"The overall conclusion is that all stakeholders must work together in a coordinated way, based on shared values. At the same time, it's crucial that someone leads the entire system," Koppel emphasizes. He warns that if the system continues to be managed informally, with advisers only invited to discussion groups, the full potential of scientific advisers will remain untapped.

System missing a smart mediator

As mentioned, the science advisory system is complex and involves many stakeholders. At the same time, there may be a lack of mutual understanding between the two key extremes in the system — politicians and scientists. "Scientists may not know how policies are made, what is feasible and how politicians operate. Similarly, politicians may not understand how scientists work and that obtaining their advice sometimes requires more time," says Koppel. According to him, politicians should first acknowledge that winning a seat in an election does not automatically make them knowledgeable and that it is worth listening to advice from experts.

Koppel believes this mutual misunderstanding is at the core of the recent conflict sparked by former President Kersti Kaljulaid's comments. In early December, at a conference, Kaljulaid criticized the Estonian scientific community, saying it "has notoriously done a poor job of helping our politicians convey the message of climate change to our citizens."

This sparked a public debate, during which the Estonian Young Academy of Sciences (ENTA) responded rhetorically, asking whether public service media had done enough to highlight scientific topics. ENTA also suggested that if senior researchers were not effective advisers, more input could be sought from younger scientists.

Koppel acknowledges that there is a problem and welcomes the debate. He also found ENTA's response admirable. "However, I believe many of Kersti Kaljulaid's critics have neither seen nor listened to what was actually said and in what context," he notes.

According to Koppel, Kaljulaid was wrong in some respects. For instance, it is unrealistic to expect scientists to speak with one unified voice. "The very nature of science is that each researcher seeks the truth. However, the truth has many facets, depending on the perspective from which it is viewed," he explains.

Koppel sees Kaljulaid's critique — that scientists' voices have not reached policymakers — as reflective of an issue identified in the report: "There is a bottleneck in the complex chain of how scientific knowledge reaches decision-makers." In his view, Kaljulaid's blunt expression of her critique unfairly placed blame solely on scientists, whereas the real issue is inadequate mediation. "This highlights once again the urgent need for a systematic approach to evidence-based policymaking," he stresses.

Kaljulaid also directed criticism at the Estonian Academy of Sciences, stating that "even within our Academy of Sciences, there are senior academics who advocate for polluting technologies in this country, making the economic transition to a green economy especially difficult."

Koppel agrees that there is some truth to this criticism. "Mediating organizations have not been able to consolidate scientists' voices. Two sides — those in favor of oil shale energy and those advocating for wind energy — have been left to argue among themselves and it is difficult for politicians to decide whose advice to follow," he points out.

According to Koppel, the same issue arises in other debates, such as forestry. In the latter case, forest growers focused on the timber industry clashed with ecologists promoting biodiversity. "In such complex cases, there needs to be someone to guide the debate between different parties, such as the Academy of Sciences," Koppel suggests. In other words, intelligent mediation is essential in complex scientific debates.

Academy president: Scientific advice reaches politicians well enough

According to the outgoing president of the Estonian Academy of Sciences, Tarmo Soomere, he has already responded to Kersti Kaljulaid's criticism through the newspaper Postimees and has nothing to add. He noted, however, that this level of attack is unprecedented in Estonia. At the same time, he highlighted that Estonia is considered a role model in Europe when it comes to promoting science and providing scientific advice.

Describing the issue, Soomere, like Andres Koppel, pointed out that the two extremes in the system — scientists and politicians — may not fully understand each other. "Naturally, scientists find it difficult to grasp how decision-making in high-level politics works and what kind of information is actually needed. On the other hand, politicians and decision-makers don't always know what information they need or what questions scientists are even capable of answering," he said.

In Soomere's view, Estonian scientists' messages are already reaching both politicians and the general public effectively. "The promotion of science is occupying more space in the media than pseudoscience or horoscopes," he noted, pointing out that every reputable media outlet now has a dedicated section for science. He also believes that these messages are reaching politicians and decision-makers, including those in ministries.

However, the report suggests that scientists face challenges juggling the roles of researcher, lobbyist and adviser. Soomere argues that Estonian scientists remain too rigidly in their researcher roles when interacting with politicians. He highlighted this during the COVID-19 pandemic, when the government's scientific advisory council failed to consider the political decision-making process. "The council's messages reached virtually every citizen. In other words, the scientists fulfilled their duty to share knowledge as soon as they discovered something," he recalled.

At the same time, government meetings are closed sessions and sensitive information presented for decision-making should not be made public beforehand. "The government must receive the necessary information first — not, as often happened, learn about it last through the media," Soomere explained.

One of the central challenges of the science advisory system, according to Soomere, is figuring out how, when and to whom certain information should be conveyed. He referenced an editorial published in Nature at the end of last year, which highlighted the three pillars of science advisory systems: chief scientific advisers (scientific advisers in Estonia's context), academies of sciences and various expert commissions. "If any of these pillars is missing or sidelined, the outcome usually suffers," he pointed out. Additionally, when a minister takes scientific advice into account, the adviser should help the minister defend these positions in front of others.

Soomere believes the Estonian report on science advisory systems provides a good description of the current situation and a solid set of recommendations. "I dare say that if these recommendations were implemented in practice, not just on paper, Estonia's competitiveness would grow significantly. This would likely be accompanied by rapid economic growth, as predicted by a working group led by Erki Raasuke nearly a decade ago," he said.

However, Soomere expressed surprise at the categorization of academies alongside scientific societies and learned societies in the report. "I would argue that many of those interviewed for the report are simply unfamiliar with the mandate and activities of the Estonian Academy of Sciences," he noted. Nevertheless, he welcomed closer cooperation between scientific advisers and the academy. "Through these contacts, scientific advisers would quickly gain access to the best knowledge in Estonia, which may not reside within the academy itself but is certainly within the reach of its members," he added.

Toivo Maimets, head of the government's scientific advisory council and professor of cell biology at the University of Tartu, also referenced the Nature editorial when discussing science advice. Before the editorial was published, the journal sent out a survey to several thousand people, most of whom were members of the International Network for Government Science Advice (INGSA).

"About 400 people responded and 80 percent were critical of their country's science advisory systems. It became clear that the blame lies on both sides: 77 percent said politicians ignore or undervalue scientific advice, while 73 percent said scientists don't understand politics," Maimets said.

As a result, Maimets believes there is now a "traffic jam" where both sides have significant room for improvement. "I've always aimed to ensure more politicians understand science and I've worked toward that goal to the best of my ability. At the same time, I'm convinced that since science and politics have many differences — including their goals — a scientist who wants their advice to be taken seriously must not ignore these differences. To achieve that, they must first understand them," he concluded.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!