Climate science vs government policy gap

What’s stopping evidence from driving better policy? A fundamental disconnect between researchers and policymakers may hold the answer. 👉 77% of policymakers undervalue science advice, while 73% of researchers struggle to understand policy processes. This gap creates significant challenges in tackling global issues such as climate change, public health crises, and the regulation of emerging technologies. The solution? This Nature editorial (link in the comments) highlights two critical elements: 1️⃣ The vital role of knowledge brokers: bridging the gap between complex research into actionable insights for policymakers, ensuring evidence is not only heard but also understood and applied. 2️⃣ Training for researchers – equipping them with the skills to effectively engage with policy spaces. For researchers, engaging with policy is about more than sharing academic evidence it is: 👍 Communicating complex ideas in accessible language. 👍 Building trust and understanding differing priorities. 👍 Learning how government systems and timelines operate. The message is clear: If we want research to shape a better world, we must invest in the people and processes that connect science and policy. #EvidenceInformedPolicy #KnowledgeBrokers #ResearchImpact #ScienceCommunication

Ten reasons why the SUCCESSFUL Belgian Climate Case by Klimaatzaak - Affaire Climat is a globally significant win – for communities around the world. Thread 🧵    There are 40+ similar cases pending against governments – in Italy 🇮🇹 Sth Korea 🇰🇷 Australia 🇦🇺 Canada 🇨🇦 Sweden 🇸🇪 Turkey 🇹🇷 Poland 🇵🇱    1. Climate action is a legal duty: Belgian appeal court affirms that climate action is a legal duty, based on well-established legal principles (Belgian Civil Code & European Convention on Human Rights), following courts in Netherlands, Germany, France, Colombia, Nepal & Pakistan    2. STANDING: Individuals have standing to challenge governments’ weak climate efforts in court, due to current and future harms, including "the scale of the consequences of global warming and the magnitude of the risks it poses" [para 133]    3. DUTY: Govt must do “its part” to combat climate change [190]; Test: has Govt “take[n] appropriate and reasonable measures … in the light of the best available scientific knowledge at the time … to enable them to prevent ... the crossing of a threshold dangerous to life" [156]    4. FOCUS ON 1.5C: Holding warming to 1.5C is lodestar for governments’ climate efforts: Court assessed Govt's 2020 and 2030 targets in light of global carbon budget for 1.5C [paras 176, 191, 199] Strongest court finding on 1.5C in successful case, since Dutch Court in Milieudefensie (2021)    5. SEPARATION OF POWERS: Courts have an appropriate role in assessing whether governments' emission reduction efforts comply w. the law, including "the minimum accepted by best available science" [para 190] 6.   EU TARGETS: For EU Member States, their EU-derived target is a “minimum” but not a "ceiling" of legal obligations. Government cannot “hide behind” its EU target [161]. Similar to Dutch + German courts -- very powerful for litigation in Europe 7.    AMBITION GAP = BREACH: In light of best available science for 1.5C, court found Belgian Govt and 3 authorities’ 2020 and 2030 efforts (under EU law) fell short of legal obligations to protect people from climate harms, under ECHR & Civil Code [para 182; 211; 244] 8.   HARM: Govt’s inaction “dented” global carbon budget [268]; postponed efforts to address climate change; harmed plaintiffs’ “fundamental rights” and risk of “undermining the rights of future generations” [266] 9.   CAUSATION: Govt. cannot escape liability by pointing to others. Court rejected "drop in the ocean” argument; affirmed *individual* legal liability of the State [160, 181]; "every GHG emission counts" [233] -- following other courts globally. 10.   REMEDY: Belgian Government, Flemish Region + Brussels-Capital Region ordered to increase the *ambition* of 2030 GHG reduction target to at least 55% (compared w 47%), in line w best available science (in updated NECP) [286]. continued in comments! https://lnkd.in/enkxjNJ2

🔍 #TeachMeTuesday | Bridging the Science–Policy Gap—What May Require Change The European Commission’s just-published its final report on Bridging the Gap Between Science & Policy - https://lnkd.in/eavm9NYy - a deep look at how to fix the chronic dysfunctions in science-for-policy (S4P) systems. The report highlights a growing mismatch between research incentives and policy needs. Some takeaways that deserve attention: 📉 Researchers are not rewarded for engaging in policy work. In some systems, it’s even seen as a career risk. 🔄 Science advice is often delivered with no clear delivery paths, disconnected from the rhythms of policy. ❌ Most countries still rely on fragmented, ad hoc, and linear models of evidence transfer. ⚠️ AI produced content, a general paper overload, and low-quality journals - but also uncertain science funding sources with conflicts of interest at stake - complicate the integrity of the evidence base itself. The report proposes various solutions (all in the report), but, in my humble experience, one is key: Reward structures and academic excellence metrics -such as publication number or citations - by far - are widely disconnected from any measure of real-world economic or social impact; and the situation has not much improved over the last two to three decades. 📘 Some obvious links to - Upcoming exciting work of of TUM TransforM https://lnkd.in/eHzEjKsQ Hanna Hottenrott Sebastian Pfotenhauer Urs Gasser Thomas F. Hofmann 👉 WIPO work on Tech Transfer https://lnkd.in/eWWVn6Nb and earlier WIPO work “Harnessing Public Research for Innovation in the 21st Century”, Cambridge University Press: 👉 https://lnkd.in/gbnd4WJ8 👏 Hats off to lead editor Ilkka Tuomi and contributors Alessandro Allegra, Eva-Maria Szavuj, Annamaria Zonno, René von Schomberg, Kathryn Oliver. #SciencePolicy #S4P #PolicyImpact #Foresight #TrustInScience