Connecting Scientists to Policy

Landscape Analysis of Mechanisms Around the World Engaging Scientists and Engineers in Policy

February 2017

Around the World

This project was made possible with the support

of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

Published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science 1200 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20005 United States

© 2017 AAAS This material may be freely reproduced with attribution. Download this report and additional information at: aaas.org/GlobalSciencePolicy

CONTENTS

Report Team and Advisors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

1. Introduction: Background, Purpose, Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

2. Connection Strategies and Influences: Primary Findings and Stakeholder Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3. A Typology of Immersive Connection Mechanisms: Fellowships, Internships, Pairing Schemes, Details and Rotations . . . . . . 20

4. Successful Engagement: Factors for Effective Initiatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

5. Expanding Capacity: International Cooperation, Training, Meetings, and Networks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

6. Conclusion and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Appendix A: Science-Policy Engagement Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

TABLES, CHARTS, AND GRAPHICS

Landscape Analysis Consultations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Representation of Stakeholder Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Geographical Representation of Survey Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Importance of Different Stakeholder Groups for Science-Policy Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Survey Responses on the Most Effective Mechanisms for Science-Policy Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Perceptions on Factors that Enable and Hinder Connections Between Scientists and Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Benefits and Challenges of Immersive Science-Policy Engagement Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34–37

Summary of Elements of Immersive Science-Policy Engagement Mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44–47

Sample Training Tracks for Science-Policy Engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

2

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

Report Team and Advisors

Report Co-Chairs

Marga Gual Soler

Project Director,

Center for Science Diplomacy,

Office of International and Security Affairs,

AAAS

Cynthia R. Robinson

Senior Policy Advisor,

Center of Science, Policy, and Society

Programs, AAAS

Tom C. Wang

Chief International Officer,

Director, Center for Science Diplomacy,

Office of International and Security Affairs,

AAAS

Acknowledgments

The report co-chairs take full

responsibility for the content of this

report. We are grateful to the nearly

200 individuals who completed surveys

and participated in consultations, and

who came from an array of national

government agencies and ministries,

regional organizations and national

coalitions, higher education institutions,

policy centers and think tanks, nonprofit

and advocacy organizations, donors,

and the private sector. We also thank

the advisors who provided valuable

guidance and input as they were

tapped for different components of this

project, from initial concept to survey

design, dissemination and networking

with key contacts and stakeholders, to

text review and editing, and finally to

dissemination strategy.

Advisors

Solomon Assefa

Director, IBM Research—Africa

Kenya

Joanne Carney

Director, Office of Government Relations,

AAAS

United States

Michael J. Cheetham

Senior Advisor, National Institute of

Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering;

Former Head, U.S. Office, Indo-U.S.

Science & Technology Forum, and Director,

India Science & Technology Partnership

United States

E. William Colglazier

Editor-in-Chief, Science & Diplomacy;

Senior Scholar, Center for Science

Diplomacy, AAAS

United States

Frances Colón

Former Deputy Science and Technology

Adviser to the Secretary of State,

U.S. Department of State

United States

Yolanda L. Comedy

Director, Center for Advancing Science

and Engineering Capacity, AAAS

United States

Ernesto Fernández Polcuch

Chief of Section, Science Policy and

Partnerships, UNESCO

France

Peter Gluckman

Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister

New Zealand

Heide Hackmann

Executive Director,

International Council for Science

France

Norman P. Neureiter

Senior Scholar,

Center for Science Diplomacy, AAAS;

First Science and Technology Adviser

to the Secretary of State,

U.S. Department of State

United States

Erwin Schwella

Professor of Public Leadership,

Stellenbosch University,

Stellenbosch School of Public Leadership

South Africa

Atsushi Sunami

Vice President and Professor,

National Graduate Institute for

Policy Studies

Japan

Chris Tyler

Director, Parliamentary Office of

Science and Technology

United Kingdom

Vaughan Turekian

Science and Technology Adviser

to the Secretary of State,

U.S. Department of State;

Former Chief International Officer, AAAS

United States

James Wilsdon

Professor, Science and Democracy,

University of Sussex

United Kingdom

3

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

As science and technology drive change in society, and

society drives change in governance, there is an increasing

need and demand for mechanisms that build relationships

among scientists, engineers, and policymakers to support

evidence-based policy and practice. In response to growing

interest in establishing science policy fellowships and other

methods to engage scientists in policy processes, the American

Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the

world’s largest membership-based general scientific society,

conducted a landscape analysis of such activities around the

world. Sponsored by the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation,

the 18-month effort affirmed global demand to strengthen

connections between science and policy, highlighted factors

for productive engagement of scientists in the policy sphere,

identified more than 150 science-policy linkage mechanisms, and

clarified criteria to support their success.

The project entailed a literature review, surveys, research on

types of science-policy connection mechanisms, and individual

and group consultations. Over the period of May 2015 through

November 2016, information was gathered from nearly 200

science policy stakeholders in academia, government, nonprofit

organizations, international organizations, and the private sector

in nearly 50 countries across the globe.

This report employs the words “science” and “scientist” to

cover all STEM fields—science (including social and behavioral

sciences), technology, engineering, and mathematics. The

emphasis of the landscape analysis is on immersive, experiential

mechanisms that involve scientists directly in the policy

environment, providing them opportunities to contribute to and

learn about the science-policy interface.

The NeedThe challenges that society faces at the local, national, regional,

and international levels are becoming increasingly complex.

Governments around the world tackle multifaceted problems

that science and technology contribute to or can help address,

including challenges related to energy, water and food resources,

healthcare, employment and economic stability, infrastructure

and communications, environmental sustainability, and security.

In September 2015, countries around the world adopted the

United Nations’ set of 17 Sustainable Development Goals to

“end poverty, protect the planet, and ensure prosperity for all.”

Each goal has specific targets to be achieved over the next 15

years.1 Due to the widespread and long-term impacts of policies

addressing these highly transboundary and transdisciplinary

issues, it is increasingly valuable for policymakers, lawmakers,

and regulators to have access to the best available scientific and

technical information as a critical input to establish priorities,

make decisions, and develop and measure the effect of various

policies and practices.

Yet information itself is not sufficient. Scientific articles, research

reports, policy briefs, and other documents abound, but they

often are not framed in language or a context easily accessible

or useful to policymakers. Such materials may not be concise,

targeted to specific situations, or provided in a timely manner to

address urgent or emerging problems.

Even when such information is tailored for policy use, how

scientific information is conveyed and by whom are critical

factors.2 Traditional avenues to communicate scientific and

technical information and analyses to policymakers—in

individual roles such as chief science advisors or through expert

bodies such as national academies, advisory committees, and

blue ribbon panels—are typically reserved for distinguished

senior academics. However, the need for scientific and technical

inputs exceeds what can be provided from panels of scientists

tasked with discrete analyses, which are often generated over

months and years. Scientific input to policymakers should be

dynamic and continuous, provided by scientists who span various

disciplines and career stages. Moreover, the scientists engaged

with policymakers and in policy processes must view building

trust as an essential part of their role.

A Typology of Immersive S&T Policy Connection MechanismsGlobally, governments, universities, national academies,

professional associations, advocacy organizations, and other

stakeholders are striving to address this science-policy divide

through different approaches. This international landscape

analysis mapped immersive science-policy connection

mechanisms in a typology of four primary models: (1) fellowships,

(2) internships, (3) pairing schemes, and (4) government details

and rotations. The mechanisms enable scientists across various

career stages and disciplines to contribute to policy processes

and build relationships with policymakers.

Targeted capacity-building initiatives including workshops

and training programs also are growing at the national

and international levels, covering topics such as science

4

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

communication, science advice to governments, and science

diplomacy. Universities are introducing or expanding policy

curricula and establishing graduate degrees that encompass

science and policy. Networks of scientists and policymakers

interested in crossing boundaries to engage in policy are

flourishing. Although not considered immersive mechanisms,

these are all important components of the broader international

science policy landscape of activities. Some are also documented

in this report.

The approaches reveal a diversity of strategies and formats that

comprise the four general models targeting multiple branches of

government—executive, legislative or parliamentary, and judicial.

The mechanisms vary in scope, thematic and geographic focus,

target audience, and duration. The chart below summarizes

the four models. These are not mutually exclusive, as many

mechanisms combine elements across the different models.

These four models utilize immersive methods of experiential

learning that extend beyond theory to real world practice.

Applying scientific knowledge and methods to policy processes

requires communication and navigational skills not often

acquired through formal scientific training and education.

Immersive, relation-based mechanisms enable scientists to better

understand the policy arena and how research can be applied

to policy and societal questions and utilized within government

policy realms.

Typology of Immersive S&T Policy Connection Mechanisms

Model Target Group Duration Purpose

Fellowships Graduate STEM students

Early to mid-career scientists

Policymakers

Typically 1 year or longer, full time

Learn ways science impacts policy

Contribute unique skill sets and expertise to policymaking

Establish contacts, foster relationships, build networks

Increase comfort of policymakers in working with scientists

Expose scientists to policy processes and culture

Explore policy-related career paths

Transition to civil service

Internships Undergraduate to graduate STEM students

Early-career STEM graduates

Generally 3 months to 1 year, full time

Learn ways science impacts policy

Develop awareness of policy processes and culture

Establish contacts, foster relationships, build networks

Explore career options

Pairing Schemes Early-career to senior scientists

Policymakers

Typically 1–2 weeks per year

Improve mutual understanding

Establish contacts, foster relationships, build networks

Details and Rotations

Early-career to senior scientists

Civil servants

Generally 2–4 years, full time

Deepen understanding of policy processes and culture

Contribute expertise to specific issues or projects

Establish contacts, foster relationships, build networks

Transition to civil service

5

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

These mechanisms also enable mutual learning, support

cooperative projects and processes, and cultivate long-term

relationships and collaborations that afford even broader

outcomes and impact. Whereas establishing connections and

fostering mutual understanding and trust are at the forefront

of many mechanisms linking scientists to policymakers, the

underlying structure and administration are critical to ensuring

the efforts are sustainable over time and move beyond individual

value to broader organizational and societal scope and benefit.

Factors That Support Science-Policy LinkagesThe landscape analysis entailed researching and gathering

perceptions on the criteria, conditions, and factors that

support or impede linkages between scientists and policy in

different parts of the world. It assembled and classified more

than 150 connection mechanisms in the four broad models

and investigated these to ascertain opportunities to guide

enhancements of existing efforts and development of new

initiatives.

Following is a summary of factors that influence successful

science-policy engagement efforts. These were identified

through the landscape analysis, gleaned from AAAS’s decades of

experience operating its Science & Technology Policy Fellowships

in Washington, D.C., and also informed by the report Elements of

a Successful Science and Technology Policy Fellowship Program

for State Legislatures.3

Political/Institutional Support: Active champions are necessary

within and outside government to build and maintain momentum

for science-policy connections. A sense of ownership is important

not only for the operating entity (if different from the host

government office) but also for the participating government

ministries, agencies, and parliamentary or legislative bodies that

host the scientists. This is especially critical for long-term success

when funding is provided from external sponsors.

Broader Impact: Successful efforts emphasize the opportunity

for contribution of scientific knowledge to support policy

development and implementation as well as professional

development. Both afford long-term outcomes and broader

impact for societal and organizational results as well as individual

benefit. Leadership development, applied research, and

individual career enhancement opportunities attract supporters,

funders, and participants.

Sustainable Funding: Stable financial support is critical to

develop and maintain mechanisms, solidify branding and

reputation, and engage in evaluation to support continual

enhancement. A diversity of internal and external funding

sources reinforces the objective or non-partisan nature of

the mechanisms. Sole-source government funding also has

been successful in cases where the programs are not tied to a

specific political party and are maintained through changes of

government.

Meaningful Engagement: Participants contribute and gain

the most from well-planned experiences that afford active

engagement and interactions that cultivate deep learning.

Targeting these experiences to the education level of the

participant is important for taking full advantage of the

knowledge and skills the participant brings. This enables more

meaningful outputs and longer-term outcomes for the receiving

policy entity, as well as broader social impact.

Multi-Perspective Integration: Mechanisms that cultivate and

synthesize multidisciplinary, multisector, and multi-stakeholder

input are more comprehensive and robust in addressing complex

challenges. Integration of STEM disciplines with perspectives

from a range of constituencies facilitates broader systems-based

thinking for realistic problem-solving that considers critical social,

economic, political, and cultural contexts.

Incentives, Compensation, and Support: Creating incentives

that acknowledge and reward civic and public engagement of

scientists and engineers is critical, especially within academia.

Policy-savvy academics can contribute significantly to their

institutions through knowledge of government funding sources

and strategy. The ability to target research proposals to

government interests and needs, and to frame communications

to policymakers to garner support by conveying how academic

research and innovation contribute to local communities and

the broader economy is imperative. For efforts involving longer-

term investment of time and effort, adequate compensation and

support for fellows, as well as flexibility and recognition in the

academic career progression, are required to attract participants

and enable their dedicated focus.

6

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

Appropriate Infrastructure: Sufficient organizational staffing

and capacity are critical to operate well-run, efficient, and

effective programming at the designated scale. Activities range

from promoting to recruiting to selecting and placing participants,

conducting orientation and professional development

programming, facilitating participant networking, and managing

relations with policy leaders and government ministries,

departments, and offices. Depending on the political, legal, and

cultural frameworks, in some instances a scientific nonprofit

association or consortium may be the most effective organization

to operate science-policy connection mechanisms. In other cases,

academic institutions or government entities may be appropriate.

Measurable Value: To measure the contributions of science-

policy engagement mechanisms, programs must track shorter-

term outputs, as well as longer-term outcomes and impacts. This

includes direct support for policy, developing S&T leadership

capacity, and influencing continued engagement at the

intersection of science and policy through participants’ career

choices and achievements.

Community: Strategies to foster a sense of community among

participants in science policy activities and across mechanisms

cultivate broader communication and flow of information,

resource sharing, and collaborative activities for broader impact.

RecommendationsA common and primary theme throughout this project has been

the need to engage and nurture a new generation of scientists

around the world to meet current and future demand at the

science-policy interface. The international landscape analysis

concluded with an overarching recommendation to cultivate

and network such boundary-spanning STEM leaders4 who can

engage successfully at the intersection of science and policy.

A focus on communication, knowledge sharing and collaboration

will help address both need and demand internationally.

Cultivate and network boundary-spanning STEM leaders around the world to engage at the science-policy interface.¡¡ Establish more immersive science-policy engagement

mechanisms to give scientists the tools to address complex

societal challenges, especially in countries and regions where

policymakers are not already well linked to the scientific

community.

¡¡ Broaden the diversity of scientists and engineers engaging at

the science-policy interface by expanding opportunities for

and recruiting participants from underserved populations and

geographic regions, as well as from a variety of disciplines,

backgrounds, cultural perspectives, genders, and career

stages.

¡¡ Create opportunities to network and forge connections among

participants, alumni, funders, and administrators across

communities to foster innovation and global collaboration.

¡¡ Establish general core competencies and outline sets of skills

that empower boundary-spanning expertise in the S&T policy

arena to support shared understanding and aims across

different political and cultural environments.

¡¡ Expand and create trainings, courses, meetings, and

networking opportunities to facilitate boundary-spanning

learning and connections.

¡¡ Foster incentive structures within academia that reward

science-policy engagement, outreach, mentoring, and other

avenues of civic service.

7

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

Communicate the applications of science and how they serve society.¡¡ Foster an ethos of civic engagement internationally by

training STEM students on the ability and responsibility of

science to help meet the needs of countries and citizens

around the world.

¡¡ Increase training opportunities to researchers, faculty, and

students for effective communication about science to

non-scientific audiences, with an emphasis on translating

the applications of research to spark innovation and solve

problems, in ways that can be readily understood by the

public and policymakers.

¡¡ Demonstrate opportunities for and the value of policy-related

nonacademic career paths that provide meaningful avenues

to communicate and apply science for society.

Facilitate knowledge sharing and collaboration.¡¡ Facilitate the exchange of information about activities and

mechanisms so that current efforts can benefit from other

models and experiences, and to inspire the creation of new

mechanisms informed by successful practices.

¡¡ Strengthen science diplomacy and advance regional and

global cooperation on science and technology policy by

cultivating connections among national, regional, and

international science and policy stakeholders.

¡¡ Establish an online global science policy resource and

networking hub to provide centralized access to information,

tools and practices, case studies, lessons learned, training

and funding opportunities, events, and science policy jobs

and related news.

The recognition and involvement of stakeholders from academia,

government, nonprofits, industry, and the funding community

are all critical for ultimate success of these efforts to build more

effective science-society connections.

The landscape analysis focused on the range of relationship-

building mechanisms and pathways enabling direct interaction

between scientists and policymakers—as opposed to the

different ways scientific information flows into policymaking—

and identified key criteria and factors supporting their success.

The emphasis is on people as connectors in structures for

individual and collective engagement. This report serves as

a guide to enhance existing initiatives and to develop new

mechanisms to bridge the divide between the scientific and

policy communities worldwide.

A number of such contemporary activities are converging to

contribute valuable inputs and advance collective effort around

the world. For example, the International Network for Government

Science Advice (INGSA) is leading an initiative to establish

principles for providing ethical, transparent science advice that

will provide a critical foundation for the science-policy interface

internationally.5 The Japan Science and Technology Agency

has also been engaged in developing a “Code of Conduct for

Scientists.”6

The Evidence-Based Policymaking Collaborative, launched in

September 2016, has developed principles for evidence-based

policymaking and is creating tool kits, case studies, briefs, and a

research clearinghouse to support policymakers, agency heads,

and other leaders seeking to improve results in the public sector.

A three-year project on scientific advice for global policymaking,

launched in August 2016 by the InterAcademy Partnership in

collaboration with the Institute for Advanced Study, specifically

targets strengthening the science-policy interface with a focus on

inputs to the United Nations.7

Finally, beyond the specific programs highlighted as case

examples in this report, several new science policy fellowship

programs have been launched or piloted since 2015 in Australia,

Canada, India, and the United Kingdom. Argentina and Spain

have communicated their intention to establish science policy

fellowships in the near future.

This convergence of activity to inform policy and highlight

the importance of the science-policy interface creates an

ideal environment to advance a culture of international civic

engagement for scientists. The moment is pivotal to cultivate a

global force of boundary-spanning STEM leaders to help meet the

needs of countries and citizens around the world.

Science has as its greatest purpose contribution to the

benefit of all people and the planet. It is our civic duty to be engaged and support the integration of scientific evidence into national, regional, and global policymaking.”

Rush Holt, CEO, American Association for the Advancement of Science

CHAPTER 1

9

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION Background, Purpose, Methods

BackgroundAs policy decisions increasingly involve scientific or technical

issues, countries have recognized the need for better connections

between the scientific and public policy domains. Scientists

involved in policy act as translators between two worlds, and

represent an emerging group of boundary-spanning professionals

building bridges that enable better solutions for the complex

challenges facing society.

A declaration from the 2015 World Science Forum noted, “The

independence, transparency, visibility and accountability of those

who receive and provide advice has never been more important.”8

Moreover, those scientists engaging with policymakers, or in

some cases scientists-turned-policymakers, are only as effective

as they are trusted.9, 10 In a new era of “post-truth,”to shape

public opinion and influence policy decisions,11 direct contact with

scientists and engineers is even more essential.

To stop evidence-based policy losing its clout, researchers

need to engage with policymakers and understand their needs.”

E. William Colglazier, editor-in-chief, Science & Diplomacy

Yet scientists often are criticized for not moving their science

“beyond the ivory tower” and for their lack of skill and focus in

communicating to nonscientific audiences, especially

policymakers and the public. The matter is often not a lack of

interest. Scientists may lack skills, career incentives, and

opportunities to effectively support policy or to communicate

successfully with policymakers. Just as C. P. Snow advocated

almost 60 years ago, there remains the need to “build bridges,

to further the progress of human knowledge and to benefit

society.”12

Today, there are few professionals who successfully bridge

the two worlds. Heide Hackmann, executive director of the

International Council for Science (ICSU), has argued that science

policy must do more to help dismantle boundaries separating

disciplines, regions, and scientists, with the goal of producing

knowledge in support of a sustainable and just world. She

envisions “a new global science policy paradigm” in which

scientists not only integrate their efforts with those of colleagues

from other disciplines and fields but also work iteratively with

decision makers, policy shapers, practitioners, and other societal

stakeholders in open, networked knowledge arenas, involving

collaborative learning and problem-solving.13 14

Activities that immerse scientists in the policy realm are among

the most successful means of fostering this cultural exchange.

“To stop evidence-based policy losing its clout, researchers need

to engage with policymakers and understand their needs,” noted

E. William Colglazier, the editor-in-chief of Science & Diplomacy.15

He emphasized in a September 2016 article in Nature, “To build

awareness and links, science funders and societies should offer

fellowships for early- and mid-career scientists, engineers and

medical professionals to spend time in government.”

A variety of structures for integrating scientific and technical

expertise into policymaking have emerged internationally,

reflecting distinctive cultures and traditions of decision making.

These can be formal or informal, permanent or ad hoc, operate at

different levels of government—local, state, federal, regional, and

supranational—and involve scientists at different career stages.

10

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

Policymakers need to obtain scientific inputs under different

timeframes, depending on the stage of the policy process and

the type of policy, and these requirements dictate the nature

and duration of the interaction with science experts. A 2014

briefing paper titled Science Advice to Governments,16 produced

by INGSA, outlines two main routes for providing scientific

information to policy: in-house capability and external advice as

outlined below.

¡¡ Internal input: Government agencies directly conduct

research and oversee funding that supports research

and analysis to provide information for policymaking.

Examples include Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and

Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) and the European

Commission’s Joint Research Centre (JRC). A growing number

of countries have established the post of chief scientist or

chief science advisor to government agencies, ministries, and

within their respective executive offices to provide, oversee,

and coordinate the infusion of science into the policy process.

¡¡ External input: Traditional external government advisory

structures include science advisory committees, councils, or

specially appointed panels comprising members of national

academies and learned societies serving in their expert

capacity on broad science issues or particular subjects.

Examples include the Prime Minister’s Science, Engineering

and Innovation Council (PMSEIC) in Australia, Japan’s Council

for Science, Technology and Innovation (CSTI), and the U.S.

President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology

(PCAST).

A 2016 Finnish report titled Scientific Support for Sustainable

Development Policies17 further refines scientific inputs to policy

into a typology of six models noted here.

1. The Independent Model: Independent groups or panels

of experts conducting scientific advice, assessment, and

monitoring.

2. The Integrated Model: Groups of experts integrated into the

governmental sphere, consisting not only of scientific experts

but also of parliamentarians, political decision makers, and

other stakeholders.

3. The Assignment Model: Demand-driven scientific support

provided for policymakers by task forces.

4. The Nested Model: Scientific support organized for

policymakers via institutionalized arrangements of “nested”

expert hierarchies (often research institutes).

5. The Advisor Model: Scientific advisors directly informing the

highest political actors (often aided by secretaries and other

bodies).

6. The Platform Model: Deliberative and co-productive

knowledge brokering arenas for science, including policy

interaction often organized by third parties.

11

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

Currently, the scientists and engineers participating in many

of these advisory structures and as chief scientists to their

government are typically accomplished later-career academics

serving full or part-time in cabinet-level roles or senior

researchers who retain their position at their home institutions

while contributing to the policy process ad hoc.

These approaches are critical, yet not sufficient, to meet the

wide-ranging needs for scientific inputs to policy. Nor are they

inclusive enough to address the increasing demand from early

and mid-career scientists around the world seeking engagement

in the policy realm, or aspiring to careers in government,

advocacy, communication, and other nonacademic roles focused

on contributing their scientific expertise to policy and society.

To address these demands from governments and policymakers

as well as scientists, AAAS, with support from the Gordon and

Betty Moore Foundation, conducted an international landscape

analysis to document the range of strategies and mechanisms

connecting scientists with policymaking around the world, along

with their challenges, benefits, and opportunities.

AAAS has operated its successful Science & Technology Policy

Fellowships (STPF) since 1973, and in the past 15 years the

association has received increasing inquiries for input and

guidance on establishing science-policy connection mechanisms

from governments, organizations, and scientists around the

United States and internationally. A number of programs are now

operating modeled on the STPF program (see case summary in

Chapter 3).

PurposeThis report presents the findings and recommendations from a

landscape analysis of mechanisms that connect scientists with

policy. The project had two broad objectives:

1. Map and categorize immersive mechanisms and models

connecting scientists and engineers with policy processes in

countries and regions around the world.

2. Assess the criteria, conditions, factors, and stakeholders that

support successful engagement and sustainable linkages

between scientists and policy processes in different regions of

the world.

The landscape analysis sought to:

¡¡ Ascertain perspectives on the challenges to and

opportunities for connecting science to policy and scientists

to policymaking from a range of stakeholders in different

countries and regions.

¡¡ Gather perspectives, data, and criteria for successful

engagement at the intersection of science and policy

internationally.

¡¡ Provide case examples, resources, and practical guidance

garnered from both successes and challenges to stakeholders

interested in creating mechanisms to connect the scientific

and policy communities.

¡¡ Develop recommendations to cultivate and support additional

and enhanced initiatives that directly engage scientists with

policymaking around the world.

This report does not seek to list every program or mechanism in

existence in every country. It instead showcases different models

and approaches that directly connect scientists with policy, and

extracts themes, best practices, lessons learned, and challenges

associated with establishing and sustaining such mechanisms

in different political, scientific, socioeconomic, and cultural

contexts.

The landscape analysis focused mainly on external mechanisms

for bringing or exposing scientists to policymaking; hence, it does

not analyze in-house government science-advice structures such

as chief scientists, advisory bodies, or embedded mechanisms

(e.g., science agencies or government research institutes).

Finally, “science” is considered in a broad sense as defined by

the different countries and organizations surveyed, generally

encompassing natural sciences, engineering, and social sciences.

Some mechanisms include the humanities as well.

12

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

MethodsThe landscape analysis utilized a combined approach of

quantitative and qualitative methods to map the paths through

which scientists connect with policymakers and engage in policy-

making processes internationally, and to assess criteria and

factors for success.

The focus was on people as connectors: the pathways and

mechanisms available to individual scientists to engage with

policy from a practical standpoint—as opposed to analyzing

the various roles scientists can adopt in policy and government

advice18 and the different ways scientific and technical

information flow into policymaking generally.

The geographic scope of the project was global. Data collection

consisted of a combination of internet research, literature

reviews, online multi-stakeholder surveys, and online and in-

person consultations.

Online Research and Literature Review: Online research

was conducted to identify existing science-policy linkage

programs and mechanisms, as well as to compile background

documentation, reports, and evaluations when available. The

literature review (confined to materials in English with a few

exceptions) identified numerous articles, books, chapters,

proceedings, reports, and studies addressing science-policy

linkages in various countries and regions. Internet research also

focused on network mapping of stakeholders engaged at the

intersection of science and policy.

Surveys: Two surveys were distributed internationally over a

period of six months. The first, a general survey, was structured

to gather data on the status of science-policy engagement in

countries and regions from broad stakeholder perspectives,

including academia, academies of science and industry, advocacy

groups, government, industry, multilateral organizations,

nonprofit organizations, and scientific societies. The general

survey was targeted to individuals in the science policy realm

via the project’s internal and external advisors, and the networks

of the AAAS Office of International and Security Affairs and the

STPF. Input also was solicited via snowball sampling, as well as

promotion through social media channels.

The general survey, distributed in English, was designed to solicit

the following data:

¡¡ Country or region represented.

¡¡ Stakeholders and institutions considered most important

for successful science-policy connections in the represented

country or region.

¡¡ Factors and criteria that enable or hinder science-policy

connections in the represented country or region.

¡¡ Perceptions on models of S&T policy connection mechanisms

considered most effective and why (answers were not

expected to be limited to specific country or region).

¡¡ Details, documents, and contact information for science-

policy connection mechanisms in the represented country

or region.

A second survey was targeted to gather the details of existing

immersive science-policy linkage programs and mechanisms

around the world identified from the general survey, online

research, and consultations

Consultations: Extensive, targeted individual and group

consultations were conducted over an 18-month period, primarily

taking advantage of the attendance of key stakeholders at

international events and meetings. Input was solicited via

semi-structured interviews. Participants included international

science policy experts from academia, government, multilateral

organizations, academies of science and industry, and science

attachés and counselors at embassies in Washington, D.C.,

in addition to participants in fellowship programs, training

events, and dialogue meetings. In-depth interviews also were

conducted with representatives related to some of the science-

policy mechanisms identified, including current and former

administrators, host institutions, and funders.

Ultimately, nearly 200 stakeholders from 50 countries were

engaged via the surveys and consultations. The majority of

respondents to the survey (90 percent) provided input from a

single-country perspective, while 10 percent represented regional

or supranational perspectives. More than 75 percent of the

science-policy linkage mechanisms identified are U.S.-based,

with the remaining quarter from other regions around the world.

13

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

Landscape Analysis Consultations

Event/Group Location Dates

ASEAN-US Science & Technology Fellowships Orientation Jakarta, Indonesia May 4-8, 2015

TWAS-AAAS Science Diplomacy Course Trieste, Italy June 8-12, 2015

World Science Forum 2015 Budapest, Hungary November 3-7, 2015

UNESCO Latin America & Caribbean Science Diplomacy Meeting Montevideo, Uruguay December 2-3, 2015

AAAS Annual Meeting 2016 Washington DC, U.S. February 11-15, 2016

Science Diplomacy 2016 Conference Washington DC, U.S. May 5, 2016

UN Science, Technology and Innovation Forum New York, U.S. June 6-7, 2016

European Open Science Forum 2016 Manchester, U.K. July 22-27, 2016

Science-Policy Symposium Buenos Aires, Argentina September 5, 2016

Latin American Open Forum Montevideo, Uruguay September 6-9, 2016

International Network for Government Science Advice Brussels, Belgium September 29-30, 2016

Ibero-American Seminar on Science Communication Puebla, Mexico October 10-15, 2016

Falling Walls Conference Berlin, Germany November 8-9, 2016

UNESCO World Science Day 2016 Paris, France November 10, 12016

Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research Professional

Development Seminar

Puerto Plata, Dominican

Republic

November 28-

December 4, 2016

CHAPTER 2

15

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

CHAPTER 2. CONNECTION STRATEGIES AND INFLUENCES Primary Findings and Stakeholder Perspectives

Primary FindingsFrom June to December 2015, the general and mechanism-

specific surveys for the landscape analysis were disseminated to

ascertain perspectives on science-policy connection strategies,

mechanisms, and factors influencing success as well as

challenges, barriers, and opportunities. Recommendations for

connecting scientists with policymakers and policy processes in

countries around the world were solicited.

The majority of the 133 survey respondents were in academia

(40.6%) or government (36.8%). The remaining responses were

from representatives of academies of sciences and scientific

societies, nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), think tanks,

multilateral and international organizations, and industry.

The “other” category included mainly development finance

institutions and public-private organizations.

The survey input identified more than 150 science-policy connection mechanisms, of which upwards of 75 percent operate in the United States. They encompass a wide variety of formats and institutional arrangements, falling generally in the identified immersive categories of policy fellowships, internship programs, pairing schemes, and government details and rotations.

Trainings and international science policy dialogue and

networking meetings were not catalogued in the survey, but they

also serve as important venues that enable scientists to establish

both formal and informal connections with the policy world. Some

of these are highlighted in chapter 5.

Survey responses and inputs via consultations affirmed

increasing demand for science-policy engagement and capacity

building globally. Despite the number of available routes for

involving STEM professionals in policy-making processes, the

landscape analysis revealed the mechanisms often are not well

known within their own target scientific or policy communities,

and often are not connected to other mechanisms operating in

the same states, countries, or regions. Although more than 150

immersive mechanisms were identified, the study showed that

opportunities for scientists to learn to successfully engage in

policy-making processes are not sufficient to meet the needs

from governments for skilled boundary-spanning professionals or

to meet interest and demand from the scientific community.

In addition to a lack of broad awareness of existing mechanisms,

the landscape analysis revealed a lack of knowledge about

existing data, reports, curricula, and resources available to

support science-policy engagement. Many of the individuals who

provided input stressed the value of connecting networks and

communities to share resources, support communication and

collaboration, and advance a global community of practice of

STEM professionals operating successfully at the intersection of

science and policy.

Representation of Stakeholder Groups

Academia

Government

Non-profit Organization or Foundation

Other

Academy of Science

Think Tank

Multilateral/International Organization

Scientific or Engineering Society

Industry

40.6%

36.8

8.3

7.5

3.83.8

3.82.31.5

Academia

Government

Non-profit Organization or Foundation

Other

Academy of Science

Think Tank

Multilateral/International Organization

Scientific or Engineering Society

Industry

40.6%

36.8

8.3

7.5

3.83.8

3.82.31.5

16

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

Stakeholder Perspectives Data was disaggregated according to stakeholder groups,

geographical regions, and development level (high/upper-middle

income and lower-middle/low-income countries, as defined by

the World Bank19 and used by the UN) to ascertain any similarities

or differences of view based on these distinctions. Few

differences were revealed, beyond some slight variations noted

below in this section.

Overall, the government was considered the most important

stakeholder for the successful engagement between scientists

and policymaking across all countries and individuals

consulted, with a 74 percent response rate.20 Government

agencies, ministries, and legislative bodies generally are

the main recipients of scientific experts in various capacities

(e.g., government employees, fellows, interns, advisory board

members, chief scientists, visiting scholars). They are also the

largest funders of initiatives bringing scientific expertise into

government, either directly or through science funding agencies

and research foundations that can operate within or outside the

government.

Science funding organizations ranked second in importance, at 65

percent, universities and academic research institutions were a

close third, at 64 percent, and national academies of sciences and

national research councils received a 62 percent response rate.

Such entities are common in most countries around the world.

Scientific associations and advocacy/interest groups ranked

lowest, with a 24 percent response rate. Many countries do not

have scientific association structures or highly visible advocacy

organizations that can act as boundary-spanning entities, as

compared to those that exist primarily in North America and

Europe.

Nepal 1

Netherlands 1

New Zealand 2

Nigeria 5

Pakistan 2

Palestinian Territories 1

Panama 1

Rwanda 1

Slovakia 1

Slovenia 1

South Africa 12

South Korea 1Spain 1

Sweden 2

Switzerland 2

Thailand 3

2 to 31 response 4 to 6 7 or more

United Kingdom 9

United States 10

Uruguay 1

Vietnam 1

Zimbabwe 1

Argentina 3

Bangladesh 1

Brazil 3

Canada 4

Chile 2

Colombia 4

Costa Rica 1

Cuba 1

Czech Republic 1

Finland 8

France 2

Germany 1

Hungary 1

Iceland 1

India 2

Indonesia 1

Israel 1

Japan 2

Jordan 1

Latvia 1

Lebanon 4

Lithuania 1

Malaysia 4

Mexico 1

Mongolia 1

Namibia 3

Australia 6

Geographical Representation of Survey Respondents

17

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

Importance of Different Stakeholder Groups for Science-Policy Engagement

Not at all important

Slightly important

Somewhat important

Very important

Extremely important

Don’t know

Stakeholder doesn’t exist

Combined very & extremely

Government agencies and ministries

0% 8.3% 16.7% 24.2% 50% 0% 0.8% 74.2%

Science funding organizations

0.8% 12.9% 15.9% 38.6% 26.5% 2.3% 3% 65.1%

Universities and research institutions

1.5% 6.9% 26.7% 36.6% 27.5% 0.8% 0% 64.1%

National Academies of Sciences / National Research Councils

3.8% 11.4% 22% 29.5% 32.6% 0.8% 0% 62.1%

Scientific societies

3.8% 15.2% 28% 33.3% 18.2% 1.5% 0% 51.5%

Multilateral/inter-governmental organizations

1.6% 17.8% 31% 24.8% 15.5% 7.8% 1.6% 50.3%

Think tanks 9.2% 19.8% 35.9% 23.7% 5.3% 2.3% 3.8% 29%

Private companies

8.5% 20.8% 35.4% 16.2% 10.8% 6.2% 2.3% 27%

Private foundations, charities and non-profit organizations

10.8% 23.1% 35.4% 15.4% 9.2% 3.8% 2.3% 24.6%

Associations and advocacy/ interest groups

5.3% 19.7% 43.9% 17.4% 6.8% 4.5% 2.3% 24.2%

18

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

Survey Responses on the Most Effective Mechanisms for Science-Policy Engagement

Responses to the question about the most effective mechanisms

for S&T policy engagement highlighted traditional connection

routes in both high/middle-income and lower-income countries.

Advisory boards and panels or committees were ranked highest,

with science-policy dialogue meetings ranked second and chief

scientists/science advisors ranked third. Traditional mechanisms

such as advisory boards or committees and science-policy

conferences and meetings are common in both well-resourced

and lower-income countries.

The immersive mechanisms of fellowships, internships and

pairing schemes, and science policy professional development

resources were noted mainly in higher-income countries. More

than 75 percent of the mechanisms identified in the landscape

analysis are located in the United States alone.

S&T Policy Engagement Enablers and BarriersSurvey respondents were asked to select the top three factors

that enable or hinder S&T policy engagement in their countries or

regions. Twelve factors were presented, drawn from the common

views gathered throughout discussions and consultations.

Respondents also were able to provide additional factors and

open-ended answers.

Respondents from lower-income countries ranked personal

connections as more important than formal institutions,

especially boundary-spanning entities such as scientific societies,

national academies, and advocacy organizations. This view

may owe to the relative dearth of boundary-spanning formal

institutions in limited-resource countries (or institutions that

are ceremonial but not staffed to carry out independent work)

compared to higher-resource countries.

The main differences in perceptions were found between

academic respondents and government respondents. The

respondents from academia and from government (who

provided more than 75 percent of the survey responses) held

a common view on the two highest-ranked factors supporting

S&T policy engagement: (1) adequate demand from the policy

side and (2) political will and trust. The differing perspective

on the third factor from the academic side was the importance

of personal connections, whereas government respondents

considered adequate funding to be the third factor for successful

engagement. This latter view may owe to the finding that

governments directly support the majority of science-policy

connection mechanisms identified.

Similarly, respondents from academia and from government

held a common view on the two highest-ranked barriers: (1)

lack of demand from the policy side and (2) lack of political

will and trust. The differing perspective on the third factor

from the academic side was lack of training of scientists and

engineers in policy, acknowledging weakness in adequately

preparing students and faculty within the university structure

to successfully engage with policy. The government view of

academic culture as the third factor corroborates the challenge of

academia not incentivizing or rewarding policy engagement.

The alignment in perspective on the most significant impediments

presents an important point of convergence for collaboration to

address them.

Other

Internship programs

Science policy professional development

Fellowship programs

Scientists-policymakerspairing schemes

Chief Scientists / Science Advisors

Science-policy dialogue meetings

Advisory boards, panels or committees 64%

56

40

36

36

34

23

14

19

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

Perceptions on Factors that Enable and Hinder Connections Between Scientists and Policy

Enablers Rank Barriers

Adequate demand from the policy side 1 Lack of demand from the policy side

Political will and trust 2 Lack of political will and trust

Personal connections 3 Lack of training of scientists and engineers in policy

Adequate supply from the scientific and engineering communities 4 Academic culture

Existence of academies of sciences or scientific associations 5 Poor management and administration of mechanisms

Training of scientists and engineers in policy 6 Lack of awareness about existing mechanisms

Funding 7 Lack of funding

Academic culture 8 Unsustainability of mechanisms

Management and administration of mechanisms 9 Lack of supply from the scientific and engineering communities

Awareness about existing mechanisms 10 Personal connections

Sustainability of mechanisms 11 Lack of academies of sciences or scientific associations

Human resources laws and regulations 12 Human resources laws and regulations

CHAPTER 3

21

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

CHAPTER 3. A TYPOLOGY OF IMMERSIVE CONNECTION MECHANISMS Fellowships, Internships, Pairing Schemes, Details and Rotations

The landscape analysis focused on mechanisms engaging

scientists in policymaking through embedded experiences either

in government structures or at external or independent bodies,

such as academies of sciences and scientific societies. This

chapter provides an overview of four main immersive models—

fellowships, internships, pairing schemes, and details and

rotations—which are derived from more than 150 science-policy

connection programs identified around the world. As already

noted, more than 75 percent of the mechanisms catalogued

operate in the United States, and the majority of the other 25

percent are in Europe.

Representative examples of each immersive model are presented

below. The featured mechanisms have operated for a minimum

of three years. Details were drawn directly from program

administrators or participants, websites, and the landscape

analysis survey on detailed mechanisms.

Fellowships:

long-term programs focused on postdoctoral level and

professionals

AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships, U.S.

Mimshak Science and Policy Fellowships, Israel

ASEAN-U.S. Science and Technology Fellowships,

Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)

Internships:

short-term programs focused on students

Christine Mirzayan Science & Technology Policy Graduate

Fellowships, U.S.

POST Fellowships, U.K.

Pairing Schemes:

policymaker–scientist matches and shadowing programs

European Parliament MEP-Scientist Pairing Scheme, EU

Pairing Scheme, Royal Society, U.K.

Details and Rotations:

policymakers in academia and scientist placements in

government

CSaP Government Secondments, U.K.

Intergovernmental Personnel Act, U.S.

Benefits and challenges of the four models are summarized in

charts at the end of this chapter. The full list of mechanisms

compiled through the landscape analysis is provided in

Appendix A. It is not meant to be a comprehensive catalogue

of every program in existence, but it provides a broad range of

mechanisms operating around the world.

FellowshipsMechanisms categorized in this model are broadly defined as

being focused mainly on postdoctoral and professional career

stages, rather than students, and longer-term experiences of

a year or more, full time. Participants are typically designated

annually via competitive selection processes based on specific

eligibility requirements with regard to the thematic focus, career

level, disciplinary scope, or assignments involved. The majority

of fellowship programs catalogued have nationality requirements

for reasons of security clearances and regulations or labor laws

governing the placement processes.

Some programs have broad, multidisciplinary agendas while

others are targeted to specific priorities for a specific state,

country, or region, such as health, environment, security, or big

data. Some fellowships are targeted to bring specific technical

and scientific expertise to decision makers, while others are

structured to allow contribution of scientific knowledge and skills

broadly to policy planning, development, enactment, funding,

implementation, and evaluation.

Sponsoring entities include federal agencies, scientific

societies, NGOs, private foundations, and industry partners. Of

the fellowships identified in the landscape analysis, most are

administered by independent organizations, such as academies

of sciences or scientific societies (even if sponsored by the

government). This separation of program administration and

hosting roles, in many cases, helps ensure compliance with legal

and ethical frameworks and regulations.

In the embedded experience, fellows learn the inner workings

of the policy-making processes. Upon completion, fellows may

return to the sector or setting they came from, or apply their

freshly acquired knowledge, skills, and networks in new arenas.

22

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

The three fellowship case summaries present:

1. A long-standing U.S. federal government-focused

program that engages scientists and engineers (currently

U.S. citizens only) from a wide range of disciplines,

backgrounds, and career stages with a broad science policy

focus, administered by a scientific society and supported

primarily with U.S. federal government funding.

2. A decade-old thematically focused (environment-related)

program in Israel targeted to early career participants,

administered by a scientific society in partnership with a

university and supported primarily with foundation funding.

3. A supranational program for ASEAN member states, targeted

to early and mid-career scientists with annual thematic foci

and an emphasis on science diplomacy, administered by the

ASEAN Secretariat and supported by a foreign government

international development agency (USAID).

FELLOWSHIPS CASE 1:

AAAS S&T Policy Fellowships, U.S.

http://www.aaas.org/program/science-technology-policy-

fellowships

Mission, Objectives, and Impact Strategy: The AAAS Science &

Technology Policy Fellowships (STPF) program connects science

with policy and fosters a network of science and engineering

leaders who understand government and policymaking, and are

prepared to develop and execute solutions to address societal

challenges. The program is operated by AAAS as part of its

mandate to “advance science and serve society.” The program’s

aim is to foster scientifically informed, evidence-based policy and

practice by involving scientists and engineers from a broad range

of disciplines, backgrounds, and career stages to contribute

their knowledge and analytical skills to (1) learn firsthand about

policymaking and implementation at the federal level and (2)

build leadership for a strong S&T enterprise that benefits society.

Funding: U.S. federal grants and contracts for the majority of

fellowships, which are in the executive branch of government.

Fellowships in the legislative branch, the U.S. Congress, are

sponsored by AAAS directly (two fellowships) and more than 30

partner scientific and engineering societies that recruit, select,

and sponsor their own fellows to participate in the annual STPF

congressional cohort. Private foundation funding supports

several fellowship slots, including placements in the judicial

branch.

Number of Fellows: Approximately 175 per year: 140 executive

branch, 1 judicial branch, and more than 30 in the legislative

branch. STPF allows up to 12-month renewal for fellowships in

the executive branch. Approximately 100 fellows renew yearly,

resulting in annual classes of roughly 275 fellows.

Disciplinary Scope: All fields of science, including behavioral

and social sciences, medicine, and all fields of engineering.

Career Stage: Postdoctoral—from recent doctorate recipients to

mid- and senior-career scientists and engineers. The program also

accepts candidates with a master’s in engineering with additional

professional engineering experience.

Duration: One year (September through August), full time.

Geographic Scope: U.S. federal policy, which includes

assignments with both domestic and international focus.

23

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

Summary: Considered the first program of embedded S&T policy

fellowships, the STPF program started in 1973, providing yearlong

experiential-learning and civic-engagement opportunities that

offered scientists and engineers the tools to better apply and

communicate science within a policy context. The program began

with seven fellows placed in the U.S. Congress, sponsored by

four scientific and engineering societies. Placements in the

executive branch started in 1980, with the first assignments at

the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of

State. Fellowships in the judicial branch were launched in 2014

with placements at the Federal Judicial Center. Over four decades,

the STPF has placed fellows in more than 50 congressional offices

and committees and more than 25 government agencies, and

STPF has partnered with nearly 60 scientific and engineering

sponsoring societies. There are now more than 3,000 STPF

alumni. Two alumni fellowship programs operate with placements

in U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) overseas

missions and at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The success

and growth of the program has inspired other institutions to

establish their own programs (see “Other Resources,”).

The STPF was created and continues to be operated by AAAS, an

international scientific society (and the publisher of this report).

The focus is to cultivate policy-savvy scientists and engineers

by developing their ability to effectively inform individuals and

institutions that influence and determine policies, regulations,

and funding. The STPF, as noted, places fellows in the three

branches of U.S. government for one-year assignments;

executive branch fellowships may be renewed for up to 12

months. Participant selection is conducted through a competitive

three-step evaluation process involving independent selection

panels. A comprehensive professional development program

augments immersive learning, beginning with a two-week

orientation and continuing with monthly training in three learning

tracks: policy, leadership, and communication. Thematic affinity

groups are supported by AAAS to network, share resources,

and self-organize learning experiences ranging from speaker

presentations to tours (e.g., of government facilities, museum

exhibits) to multi-day symposia.

Participants transition and evolve into positions across academia,

government, nonprofits, and industry to serve the nation and

citizens around the world. Alumni carry into their future pursuits

a deep understanding of U.S. government programs and initiatives

and the many factors affecting policy. The program does not

articulate any specific intention for fellows to pursue future

government employment, although many do. In the immediate

years following the fellowship, approximately 40–50 percent

of fellows continue to work in the policy arena (local, state,

national, and international, in government or nongovernment

policy positions), 20–25 percent return to academia, and

another 20–25 percent use the experience as a door to new

opportunities in nonprofits, foundations, and the private sector.

Many fellows who have returned to academia report incorporating

modules on policy and communicating science to nonscientists

into their teaching. They also indicate that their research is more

focused on addressing policy challenges. Those who transition

into other sectors commonly take leadership roles applying and

communicating science broadly.

Alumni feedback attests that the experience enhances their ability

to engage more effectively on a broad spectrum of issues with a

range of audiences. Fellows’ supervisors also affirm the value of

contributions to host offices. STPF alumni have gained experience

to comprehend the critical importance of research, applied

science, and outreach that address societal challenges, support

public policy, and contribute to the well-being of the nation and

citizens around the world. Current and future cohorts of fellows

constitute a growing network of STEM leaders to help improve

policy outcomes and to mentor new generations of scientists

and engineers on the skills to communicate and apply science to

support improved policy.

The most important lesson I learned during my fellowship year

was that the capabilities that brought me success as a university instructor and bench scientist were, in fact, applicable to other arenas. Gathering, analyzing, and organizing information in ways that allow you to communicate with different audiences are immensely valuable skills…. I became less of a reductionist and began thinking more broadly. I learned the importance of many scientific disciplines in government policy.”

Dr. Deborah Olster, STPF alumna, now senior advisor in the Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research at the National Institutes of Health

24

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

Other Resources: Nationally and internationally, a number of

programs are modeled on the AAAS S&T Policy Fellowships and

adapted to the specific aims, cultural and political contexts, and

characteristics of their own respective situations. These include:

BSCES Legislative Fellows Program,

Massachusetts, U.S., started 2001

Stiftung Wissenschaftliche Politikstipendien,

Switzerland, started 2002

Jefferson Science Fellowship Program, U.S., started 2004

Health and Aging Policy Fellows Program, U.S., started 2008

Hellman Fellowship in Science and Technology Policy,

U.S., started 2009

California Science and Technology Policy Fellows Program,

California, U.S., started 2009

Mimshak Science and Policy Fellowships Program,

Israel, started 2011 (detailed in next case summary)

Mellon/ACLS Public Fellows Program, U.S., started 2011

ASEAN-U.S. Science and Technology Fellowships,

ASEAN region, started 2014 (detailed in third case summary)

Canadian Science Policy Fellowships, Canada, started 2016

Although not directly embedded in government, some

professional scientific societies in the United States offer science

policy fellowships within their government relations or public

affairs offices that provide valuable immersive experiences

from a government affairs perspective. Fellows participate in

research, communications, and advocacy activities including

attending meetings and hearings on Capitol Hill, agency briefings,

seminars, and coalition sessions. One example is the American

Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Science Policy

Fellowships. This and other mechanisms catalogued via the

international landscape analysis are listed in Appendix A.

Other resources of note are: AAAS Center of Science, Policy, and Society Programs

https://www.aaas.org/program/center-science-policy-and-

society-programs

American Political Science Association Congressional Fellowships

http://www.apsanet.org/cfp

ESEP–Engaging Scientists & Engineers in Policy

http://science-engage.org/index.html

Elements of a Successful Science and Technology Policy

Fellowship Program for State Legislatures

California Council on Science & Technology, January 2016

http://fellows.ccst.us/documents/Elements_2016.pdf

Evidence-Based Policymaking Collaborative

http://www.evidencecollaborative.org

UK Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST)

Academic Fellowships

http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/offices/

bicameral/post/fellowships/parliamentary-academic-fellowship-

scheme

Results for America

http://results4america.org

STPF Partner Societies

https://www.aaas.org/page/stpf/partner-societies-st-policy-

fellowships

Strengthening the Role of Universities in National Science

Policymaking

University of Michigan, February 2016

http://research.umich.edu/sites/default/files/resource-

download/wiesnersymposium2015.pdf

25

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

FELLOWSHIPS CASE 2:

Mimshak Science and Policy Fellowships Program, Israel

http://www.mimshak.org.il/en

Mission, Objectives, and Impact Strategy: Mimshak is

dedicated to improving cooperation and promoting dialogue

between the scientific community and policymakers in Israel.

The program aims to strengthen the scientific knowledge that

informs Israel’s environmental public policy and to integrate this

knowledge into policy-making processes in various government

institutions. The program places researchers, scientists, and

environmental experts to serve as advisors to senior government

officials.

Funding: Yad Hanadiv Foundation Environment Programme

Number of Fellows: 7–12 per year

Disciplinary Scope: Environmental-related fields

Career Stage: Early career—in general, no more than five years

since completion of doctoral studies or postdoctoral appointment

Duration: One year

Geographic Scope: Israel

Summary: With initiative and funding from the Yad Hanadiv

Foundation, the Mimshak Fellowships Program was created in

2011. It was established with the Israel Society of Ecology and

Environmental Sciences (ISEES), where it is administered, in

partnership with the School of Government and Policy at Tel Aviv

University and the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities.

The Mimshak Fellowships are aimed at strengthening connections

between science and environmental policy, enabling scientists

to learn and contribute to the mechanisms of policymaking in

Israel, increasing cooperation among stakeholders, and promoting

evidence-based problem-solving for 21-century challenges to

improve the quality of life in Israel. Fellows are recruited annually

for the yearlong fellowship. They spend four days per week

embedded in government offices with an assigned mentor,

and one day per week dedicated to study and training at ISEES

headquarters. The participating ministries in the Mimshak Program

have included the Prime Minister’s Office and the Ministries of

Economy, Interior, Environment, Agriculture, Health, and Energy.

The training program21 includes familiarization with the public

arena and the decision-making processes in the government,

with content encompassing law, economics, public planning, and

environmental theory. The program brings fellows into contact

with key persons in the public sphere through networking events

and field trips. Furthermore, fellows participate in workshops for

developing personal and professional skills. The professional

development curriculum includes training in presentation, public

speaking, effective communication, media training, negotiation,

and writing press releases and policy papers. Fellows also receive

orientation on the cultural transition entailed in integrating

into government offices, on building a personal vision, and on

preparation, through career sessions, for working in the public

and private sectors after the fellowship.

The program provides unparalleled exposure to

influential people, institutions, government agencies, and companies in Israel, allowing fellows to explore and map out the full range of career options they can pursue with a scientific PhD upon completion of the program.”

Amir Fink, co-director, Mimshak Science and Policy Fellowships Program

The program does not entail a designated path to government

employment because such employment is subject to Israel’s

Mandatory Tenders Law and Civil Service Commission directives.

However, some fellows have been hired into the civil service upon

completion of the program, as the experience positions them well

to demonstrate familiarity with the public sector while having

expanded their professional networks.

Other Resources (with an environmental focus or theme):Yad Hanadiv Environment Programme

http://www.yadhanadiv.org.il/programme/environment

COMPASS

http://www.compassonline.org

John A. Knauss Marine Policy Fellowship

http://seagrant.noaa.gov/FundingFellowships/

KnaussFellowship.aspx

Leopold Leadership Program

https://leopoldleadership.stanford.edu

26

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

FELLOWSHIPS CASE 3:

ASEAN-U.S. Science and Technology Fellowship Program, ASEAN Region

https://www.usaid.gov/asia-regional/documents/asean-us-

science-and-technology-fellowship

Mission, Objectives, and Impact Strategy: The goal of the

ASEAN-U.S. Science and Technology Fellowship program is to

strengthen science-based policymaking in the region by giving

scientists living in the ASEAN region the tools to take a more

prominent role in their respective countries’ efforts to integrate

into the ASEAN community. Fellows spend one year embedded in

a government ministry or agency in one of three ASEAN strategic-

priority areas: sustainable energy, climate change and science, or

technology and innovation policy.

Funding: USAID and U.S. mission to ASEAN through the ASEAN-

U.S. Partnership for Good Governance, Equitable and Sustainable

Development and Security (PROGRESS).

Number of Fellows: Approximately 15 annually

Disciplinary Scope: Broad, pertaining to annual thematic focus

Career Stage: Early career scientists with doctoral degrees

Duration: One year

Geographic Scope: ASEAN member states

Summary: The ASEAN-U.S. Science and Technology Fellowship

program was launched in 2014 by ASEAN with support from

USAID and the U.S. mission to ASEAN. The program places

early career scientists in government ministries and agencies

of ASEAN member states to leverage the potential of science

and technology to increase regional competitiveness, improve

resource management, and enhance the lives of the region’s

citizens. In its first year, the program supported seven fellows from

Indonesia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam, who

contributed their knowledge and analytical skills to national-level

S&T ministries while learning about the process of policymaking

and implementation. Based on the success of the pilot year, the

program was expanded to include 14 fellows, with the important

update that fellows were placed in sectoral or line ministries

(e.g., ministry of health, ministry of environment)—rather than

a designated science ministry—to provide them with increased

technical capacity to support science-based policy decisions.

The thematic priorities for the fellowship also have evolved in

accordance with both the U.S. and ASEAN strategic priorities.

The program was born out of the recognition that few

nongovernmental scientists in the region are routinely consulted

in policy decisions, and that scientists generally have a limited

understanding of the government decision-making process. It

is the first regional mechanism of its kind, seeking to foster and

institutionalize a culture of science-based policymaking at the

regional level by providing opportunities for policymakers and

scientists in ASEAN countries to learn from one another and

promote regional collaboration and integration.

Fellows build capacity through the daily learning in their

assignments and through mentoring, skills training workshops,

and networking at high-level regional events. These opportunities

help fellows to bridge the science-to-policy gap at the national

and regional levels and contribute to the integration of ASEAN

member states by tackling shared science-based challenges

collectively.

The newly acquired understanding of policy and government

decision-making processes leads to a variety of professional

opportunities and career directions. In the long term, the

program aims to build a regional network of scientists to facilitate

knowledge sharing and contribute the best available evidence to

inform policy decisions.

Other Resources:ASEAN–Association of Southeast Asian Nations

http://asean.org

ASEAN Plan of Action on Science, Technology and Innovation

(APASTI) 2016–2025

http://www.mih.gov.kh/File/UploadedFiles/7_6_2016_3_50_0.pdf

InnovASEAN blog

https://blogs.usembassy.gov/asean

ICSU–International Council for Science, Science for Policy

http://www.icsu.org/what-we-do/@@category_search?path=/

icsu/what-we-do&Subject:list=Science for Policy

INGSA–International Network for Government Science Advice

http://www.ingsa.org

Scientific Support for Sustainable Development Policies: A

Typology of Science–Policy Interfaces with Case Studies

http://www.sitra.fi/julkaisut/Selvityksi%C3%A4-sarja/

Selvityksia118.pdf

The Future of Scientific Advice to the United Nations

UNESCO, September 2016

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002458/245801e.pdf

27

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

InternshipsMechanisms categorized in the internship model are broadly

defined as focused on students, in most cases at the graduate

level and primarily enrolled in STEM degree programs. An

internship provides an interlude in a policy-focused setting; these

programs typically last from weeks up to six months, and afford

students a valuable opportunity to (1) learn more about the policy

world during their formative years, (2) observe the application

of science to policy, and (3) gauge their interest in pursuing

policy-focused career paths. Using this lens, programs with the

title “fellowship” that are student-focused and short-term are

categorized under “internships.”

As with fellowships, internship participants are normally chosen

via competitive selection systems based on specific eligibility

requirements with regard to the topical focus, disciplinary scope,

or assignments involved. Science policy internships also range

from broad, multidisciplinary agendas to targeted themes.

They encompass both salaried and volunteer arrangements,

generally require little or no previous experience in policy,

and tend to be less strict about nationality requirements than

fellowships or details and rotations. Internships are offered at

and funded by government entities and many other stakeholders

in the science policy landscape, including universities, scientific

societies, academies of sciences, think tanks, advocacy

organizations, and industry.

In the embedded experience, interns likewise have the

opportunity to learn the procedures, protocols, and politics

associated with the policy and decision-making processes.

Activities vary depending on the assignment but are generally

more focused on learning than final products.

The two case summaries present:

1. A program administered and supported by the U.S. National

Academies for nearly two decades that provides three-month

immersive experiences within the organization for graduate

students from a broad range of disciplines.

2. An established program administered and supported by the

U.K. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology that

offers three-month experiential opportunities in Parliament

for doctoral students.

28

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

INTERNSHIPS CASE 1:

Christine Mirzayan Science & Technology Policy Graduate Fellowship Program, U.S.

https://www.usaid.gov/asia-regional/documents/asean-us-

science-and-technology-fellowship

Mission, Objectives, and Impact Strategy: The Christine

Mirzayan Science & Technology Policy Graduate Fellowships

are designed to engage early career professionals in the

analytical processes that inform U.S. science and technology

policy. Through three-month, full-time assignments to support

production of policy reports at the National Academies of

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in Washington, D.C., fellows

obtain essential skills and knowledge about the intersection of

science and policy.

Funding: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and

Medicine (NAS)

Number of Fellows: Approximately 20

Disciplinary Scope: STEM fields, business, and law

Career Stage: Graduate students and postdoctoral students

within five years after completion of degree

Duration: Three months

Geographic Scope: U.S. assignments and policy focus, many

with international dimensions

Summary: Now in its 19th year, the program engages participants

in National Academies’ processes to develop, produce, and

promote policy reports for U.S. government and nongovernmental

clients. Selected fellows from around the world (applicants must

hold a pertinent visa) become part of an Academies’ committee,

board, or unit, where they are assigned to a mentor and learn

about the analytical deliberations that inform U.S. science and

technology policy at the federal, state, and local levels. Fellows

obtain a firm grasp of the role of S&T in decision making while

broadening awareness of employment opportunities outside

academia.

Orientation sessions cover how the Academies operate and the

fundamentals of science and technology policy. Throughout the

fellowship participants also learn from presentations about other

stakeholders that influence, make, or report on science and

technology policy. They are encouraged to attend congressional

hearings, seminars at think tanks, and briefings at federal

agencies.

Fellows are supported to network with alumni who hold positions

in science policy, including on congressional committees, and

with federal agencies, foreign governments, international

institutions such as the European Union and World Bank, as well

as universities, and the private sector.

Other Resources: Australian Academy of Science Policy Internships

https://www.science.org.au/files/userfiles/about/Academy%20

of%20Science%20Policy%20Internship%20Opportunity%20

starting%202017.pdf

ELISS–Emerging Leaders in Science & Society

http://elissfellows.org

Hertog Foundation Fellowships

https://hertogfoundation.org/our-programs

Research!America

http://www.researchamerica.org

29

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

INTERNSHIPS CASE 2:

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology (POST) Fellowships, U.K.

http://www.parliament.uk/postfellowships

Mission, Objectives, and Impact Strategy: The U.K.

Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology is the internal

source of scientific advice in the U.K. Parliament. POST runs

several programs in partnership with the country’s research

councils, learned societies, and charities, through which PhD

students are sponsored to spend approximately three months

immersed in a policy-focused assignment. Some fellowships are

also open to postdoctoral researchers.

Funding: The U.K. Parliament provides infrastructure support

(office space, desk, technology, human resources, and costs for

research such as travel and conference fees) along with training,

supervision, and access. Each fellow’s institution provides the

three-month stipend and either regular travel to London or

accommodation in London.

Number of Fellows: Approximately 35

Disciplinary Scope: STEM fields, including social sciences

Career Stage: Doctoral students

Duration: Three months

Geographic Scope: U.K. assignments and policy focus, many

with international dimensions

Summary: POST runs fellowship schemes that enable doctoral

students to spend time immersed in the office’s activities. In

addition, POST places some fellows with the Research Libraries

U.K., and select committees of both houses of Parliament.

The majority who are placed with POST will research, write,

and publish a “POSTnote”—a four-page briefing paper that

summarizes research evidence and places it in a policy

context for parliamentary use. All POSTnotes are circulated to

parliamentarians, made available around the parliamentary

estate (both on release and to match topical parliamentary

activity) and are published online, freely available to all, including

the public. Many POST fellows help organize briefing breakfasts,

seminars, workshops, and conferences at which academic

experts engage directly with parliamentarians to explore policy-

relevant evidence and discuss solutions to policy problems.

Other Resources: Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering (ATSE)

Science and Technology Policy Graduate Internships

https://www.atse.org.au/content/news/science-and-technology-

policy-graduate-internship.aspx

Center for Science and Policy (CSaP), University of Cambridge,

Policy Internships, U.K.

http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/news/article-understanding-needs-

policy-makers

National Environment Research Council (NERC), Research Council

Policy Internships Scheme, U.K.

http://www.nerc.ac.uk/funding/available/postgrad/advanced/

policy-interns

Research Councils recognize that when they’re training PhD

students, not all of them will become academics, and the ones who do need to have policy understanding. It’s beholden on them to train their PhD candidates, so they run competitions to identify a few of their best who they fund to receive training and experience in a POST fellowship.”

Chris Tyler, director of the U.K. Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology

30

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

Pairing SchemesPairing schemes connect scientists and engineers with

members of parliament (MPs), legislators, or civil servants to

experience each other’s worlds. Participants are predominantly

from academia. Pairing schemes aim to promote a culture of

science-based policymaking in parliaments, facilitate the entry

of scientific advice into legislatures, and help create lasting

links and mutual understanding between scientists and MPs

or legislators. These programs typically require only a few days

of commitment and are ideally suited for busy academics and

policymakers who lack the time for more intensive or longer

experiences.

The two case summaries present:

1. An established program administered and supported by

the U.K. Royal Society offering one-week experiential

opportunities for scientists to pair with and shadow members

of parliament and some civil service posts and, in turn, for

MPs and civil servants to experience the academic research

environment.

2. A program administered and supported by the European

Union that provides one-week immersive opportunities for

scientists from a broad range of disciplines and members of

the European Parliament to engage in mutual learning about

each other’s worlds.

PAIRING SCHEME CASE 1:

Royal Society Pairing Scheme, U.K.

https://royalsociety.org/grants-schemes-awards/pairing-scheme

Mission, Objectives, and Impact Strategy: The Royal Society

selects 30 scientists every year to spend a week in Westminster

learning how Parliament works by shadowing a partner MP or

senior civil servant. A reciprocal visit takes place later when MPs

visit the research institutions. This scheme gives policymakers

an opportunity to better understand the use of evidence in

policymaking, and provides scientists with direct insight into

how policy develops, how research findings can help inform

policymaking, and an overall enhanced understanding of how

they can get involved.

Funding: Royal Society

Number of Pairs: 30

Disciplinary Scope: STEM fields

Career Stage: Scientists with at least two years of postdoctoral

research experience, matched with MPs

Duration: One week for scientists in Parliament, and up to one

week for MPs and civil servants in the academic setting

Summary: The scheme begins with a “Week in Westminster,”

during which the pairs first meet. Over this week, the scientists

take part in workshops, hear from invited speakers, and spend

two days in their shadowing role. After this first week, the

parliamentarians and civil servants have their turn to gain insight

into the world of research, undertaking reciprocal visits at their

respective pairs’ academic institutions.

Other Resources: Science Meets Parliament, Australia

http://scienceandtechnologyaustralia.org.au/focus-on/science-

meets-parliament-2016

The Society of Scientists and Parliament Members TUTKAS,

Finland

https://www.eduskunta.fi/EN/kansanedustajat/verkostot/

Pages/default.aspx

University College of London Public Policy placements, U.K.

https://www.ucl.ac.uk/public-policy/for-researchers/policy-

placements

The fellowship provided an important stimulus for the

development of a behavioural science checklist, which enables risk holders in government to incorporate behavioural science advice into their emergency planning.”

Elizabeth Surkovic, Government Office for Science, CSaP Policy Fellowship participant

31

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

PAIRING SCHEME CASE 2:

European Parliament MEP-Scientist Pairing Scheme, EU

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/cms/home/activities/

mepscientist

Mission, Objectives, and Impact Strategy: Jointly organized and

managed by the Science and Technology Options Assessment

at the European Parliament and the European Commission,

these schemes pair Members of European Parliament (MEPs)

with scientists to build relationships through experiencing each

other’s professional world and day-to-day activities.

Funding: European Union

Number of Pairs: 16

Career Stage: Mid- to late-career scientists, matched with

members of the EU Parliament

Duration: One week for scientists in the European Parliament and

optional follow-up visits for MEPs to see their paired scientists at

their research institutions.

Summary: To support the development of relationships between

MEPs and scientists, the European Parliament operates MEP-

Scientist Pairings. Through their introduction to a network of

scientists and researchers, MEPs gain an enhanced awareness

of scientific processes and discovery, along with a better

understanding of the scientists’ points of view on policy issues.

Scientists learn how to interact effectively with politicians and

how to proactively inform them in fields of mutual interest,

as well as contribute to the dissemination of information to

universities and other scientific institutions on the structure and

implementation of relevant European policies and programs.

Scientists are invited to Brussels to shadow and assist MEPs

in their daily political activities, allowing them to observe EU

science, technology, and research policy players in action. As a

follow-up, the pairs are encouraged to collaborate in organizing

an event, with a European dimension, on a topic of their choice.

Other Resources: Ambassadors for Science, Spain

https://www.fecyt.es/en/noticia/first-shadowing-programme-

between-scientists-and-diplomats-starts-london

CSaP Policy Fellowships Programme, Center for Science and

Policy at the University of Cambridge, U.K.

http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/policy-fellowships/policy-fellows

Members of Parliament–Members of the Academy of Sciences–

Young Researchers, France

http://www.academie-sciences.fr/archivage_site/en/pairing.htm

32

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

Details and Rotations The details and rotations addressed in this section generally

bring STEM professionals into temporary full-time government

employment for periods of two to four years. This period

provides an opportunity to contribute expertise on specific

issues or projects on a longer-term basis while learning about

policymaking, and to introduce STEM professionals to civil

service roles and cultivate leadership for career employment.

The programs target the early to senior career stages.

Participants are mainly from academia but also from the

nonprofit and private sectors.

Shorter-term opportunities also exist in government settings for

civil servants to experience new environments and processes,

become skilled in different issue areas, and expand their

networks, and for STEM professionals from sectors outside

government to engage in short-term assignments.

The two case summaries present:

1. A U.K. government leadership development initiative offering

four-year full-time civil service training opportunities for

STEM professionals with master’s and doctoral degrees.

2. An established U.S. government program that augments

executive branch needs for specialized staffing through

temporary two- to four-year full-time government assignments.

DETAILS AND ROTATIONS CASE STUDY 1:

Civil Service Fast Stream, U.K.

https://www.faststream.gov.uk/science-engineering

Mission, Objectives, and Impact Strategy: To ensure that

the best science and engineering advice is brought to bear on

government policy and decision making, the Fast Stream program

recruits doctoral and master’s graduates in STEM disciplines into

the civil service for a four-year training program. Fast Streamers

work on issues ranging from climate change and bioscience policy

to defense technology, transport innovation, and food production.

Funding: U.K. government

Number of Participants: Ranges depending on participating

ministries, agencies, and other placement opportunities

Career Stage: Primarily early career doctoral-level scientists

Summary: Fast Streamers take on a range of roles across the

U.K. Civil Service—some with a substantial policy element, others

more technical in nature—that augment science and engineering

expertise in the civil service, and provide access to a wide range

of potential career pathways. Participants apply specialist skills

and knowledge to the development and application of policies

and undertake systems-level analysis. They receive core training,

including a four-day induction program, training courses, and

online education.

In the initial year, participants complete a posting in the civil

service, working with a chief scientific advisor or providing expert

advice and analysis to inform a specific area of policy. The second

year entails two six-month rotations, including one in the wider

public sector, the private sector, or overseas in order to gain

new perspectives to inform policymaking. After a third yearlong

posting back in the civil service, Fast Streamers take on a more

specialized or technical role. The final year is spent in a policy

or operational delivery role in a technical environment. Upon

completing the Fast Stream program, participants are eligible for

an array of career options within the civil service.

Other Resources: University College London European Institute Scientist

Secondments, U.K., http://www.ucl.ac.uk/european-institute/

news-repository/pg-secondments

Leadership and Talent Development Programmes,

Government Office for Science, U.K.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/

attachment_data/file/312972/14-797-gse-training1.pdf

33

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

DETAILS AND ROTATIONS CASE STUDY 2:

Intergovernmental Personnel Act, U.S.

https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/hiring-information/

intergovernment-personnel-act

Mission, Objectives, and Impact Strategy: The Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) Mobility Program and

Visiting Scientist Appointments allow the temporary assignment

of personnel between the federal government and state and local

governments, colleges, and universities without loss of employee

rights and benefits. The goal is to facilitate the movement

of employees to serve a public purpose. Many assignments

are specific to augmenting STEM capabilities within the U.S.

government.

Number of Participants: Varies annually across federal agencies

Career Stage: Typically mid- to senior-career tenured-faculty

scientists

Summary: Assignments to or from state and local governments,

institutions of higher education, and other eligible organizations

are intended to facilitate cooperation between the federal

government and nonfederal entities through the temporary

assignment of skilled personnel. Mobility assignments are used

in part to assist in the transfer and use of new technologies and

approaches for solving governmental problems, and to provide

program and developmental experience that will enhance the

assignee’s performance in his or her regular job.

For example, the National Science Foundation (NSF) supplies

approximately a third of its workforce of program managers

through the IPA. Known as “rotators” at the NSF, these temporary

program managers are primarily university faculty who serve

for two to four years and maintain their academic affiliation.

They make significant contributions to the NSF, bringing

research expertise and external perspectives. The rotators also

learn in-depth about the federal processes that support basic

research funding and cultivate new networks that enhance their

contributions to their home institutions upon completion of the

government assignment.

Other Resources: Partnership for Public Service Civil Service Fellows Program, U.S.

https://ourpublicservice.org/about-us/civil-service-fellows-

program.php

Civil Service STEM Fellowships and Foreign Affairs Fellowships,

U.S. Department of State

https://careers.state.gov/intern/other-programs/civil-service-

fellowship-programs

Presidential Management Fellows Program, U.S.

https://www.pmf.gov

Visiting Scientist, Engineer or Educator Program,

National Science Foundation, U.S.

https://www.nsf.gov/careers/rotator/vsee.jsp

34

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

Benefits and Challenges of Immersive Science-Policy Engagement MechanismsThe following summary charts of generalized benefits and challenges are for immersive mechanisms within a government setting. These

will be influenced by specific political and cultural circumstances. The benefits and challenges will vary for embedded programs focusing

on policy outside a government setting, such as fellowships and internships within a scientific society or advocacy organization.

COMMON FOR ALL FOUR MODELS

Benefits Challenges

Scientists / Mechanism Administration

• Gain firsthand knowledge of government systems, science funding, and policymaking.

• Learn benefits of and methods to infuse science to support evidence-based policymaking and communicate its importance.

• Foster deep understanding of research relevance to policy and society and facilitate attention to “broader impacts” in funding applications.

• Promote professional development and transferable personal and professional skills for broader career options.

• Develop networks within government and with other scientists engaged in policy.

• Build trust and mutual understanding with policymakers, government staff.

• Allow career enhancement through networking, mentorship, and connections with policymakers and other stakeholders.

• Offer opportunities through alumni networks for collaboration, mentorship, career advancement, and sharing resources beyond the duration of the experience.

• Enhance boundary-spanning capacity.

Policymakers / Government

• Infuse energy, fresh perspectives, and current scientific knowledge into policymaking and implementation.

• Augment scientific capacity of host entities.

• Cultivate culture of evidence-based inquiry and decision making.

• Build trust and mutual understanding with scientists.

• Gain broad network of policy-savvy scientists via participant alumni.

• Recruit future employees and build S&T leadership in civil service through participant exposure to opportunities to contribute.

• Lighten management burden through administration via an external, respected organization, while helping comply with ethical rules and avoid conflicts of interest and concerns about neutrality.

Scientists / Mechanism Administration

• Generally, greater interest than supply of opportunities (demand issue).

• Need to learn to communicate messages succinctly and in a policy framework focusing on constituents.

• Assignments sometimes not sufficiently substantive for degree level or aligned with professional interests or learning goals.

• Need for adjustment to slow progress within hierarchical, bureaucratic systems.

• Frustration when encountering lack of political will to implement evidence-based solutions.

• Lack of incentives, reward systems, and career recognition for policy engagement; in some instances, view of time away from academic pursuits as a distraction or even a failure.

Policymakers / Government

• Lack of awareness of benefits of evidence-based policy, or ideological views that do not embrace science findings.

• Funding generally not sufficient to meet need of government or interest of participants.

• Sustainability through political instability, administration transitions, and competing demands for limited funding.

• Difficulty of quantifying immediate and longer-term contributions to policy process and broader impact, as well as increase in scientific and technical understanding among policymakers.

35

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

FELLOWSHIPS

Benefits Challenges

Scientists

• Facilitate rapid learning and timely inputs to evolving situations through deep integration into day-to-day government operations.

• Foster ability to quickly assess needs, and synthesize and communicate information, from a policy lens on topics beyond area of expertise.

• Promote greater networking opportunities to facilitate transition to policy-oriented roles.

Policymakers / Government

• Generate a culture of inquiry, constructive questioning, and quantitative analysis in government.

• Gain low-cost or free highly educated and skilled participants (if externally sponsored) who are eager to learn and contribute their expertise.

• Enable creative, unconventional problem-solving for policy issues through fellows not indoctrinated in usual government practices.

Scientists

• Inconsistent commitment, time, and capacity across host organization supervisors and mentors.

• Hierarchical government environments and unrealistic expectations for attributable contributions, sometimes causing frustration or disappointment.

• Ambiguous titles within the host organization (e.g., fellow, scholar, specialist), potentially leading to confusion about roles, rank, independence, or neutrality.

• Insufficient instruction on assignment-specific policy instruments and activities, e.g., how to write policy briefs in a particular agency style/protocol.

• Complicated, slow, and inconsistent human resources systems and regulations across government agencies, hindering efficient placements.

• Security clearance requirements for some assignments, potentially causing delays.

• Competition for scientific input with powerful, well-resourced stakeholders (e.g., lobbyists, industry).

Policymakers / Government

• Inconsistent awareness of fellows and their roles and contributions.

• Politicians’ expectations for immediate outcomes vs. longer-term impact and influence.

• Difficulty of successfully matching fellows with host offices/supervisors if fellowship position descriptions and expectations are not clear.

• Compliance with legal, ethics, and lobbying rules and regulations when funding comes from external sources.

• High stipends in some countries (e.g., Switzerland), limiting the number of fellowships available each year and therefore the overall impact.

36

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

INTERNSHIPS

Benefits Challenges

Scientists

• Allow minimal interruptions to pursuit of degree, postdoctoral research due to short-term assignments.

• Offer exposure to policy in early career stage, helping potentially reorient graduate and postgraduate experiences to bridge skills gap for careers at intersection of science and policy.

Policymakers / Government / Host Institution

• Enable training of more participants per year due to shorter duration and generally lower cost.

Scientists

• Less time to establish meaningful relationships with policymakers and experience the full policy development cycle, as a result of short-term assignments.

• Possible perception by academic supervisors of policy engagement as a research distraction or as an expression of lack of interest in research.

• Unpaid status of some internships may tend to favor well-resourced students.

Policymakers / Government / Host Institution

• Requirement for significant time and guidance for early career training from government supervisors/mentors.

• Evaluation of knowledge, skills, and learning objectives in short-term programs, especially if across a spectrum of disciplines.

PAIRING SCHEMES

Benefits Challenges

Scientists / Mechanism Administration

• Mesh well with academic positions due to short-term or part-time commitment.

• Establish relationships with parliamentarians and civil servants.

Policymakers / Civil Servants / Government

• Learn about science behind issues.

• Increase understanding of scientific process and research environment.

• Meet experts who can provide evidence-based inputs.

• Learn how to assess research findings and how scientific results and data may be applied to inform policy decisions.

• Build long-lasting relationships with scientists.

• Network with other policymakers working on similar issues.

Scientists / Mechanism Administration

• Limited opportunity to gain deep insight into policy-making processes due to short-term and part-time experiences.

• Reliance on political will, interest, and time from policymakers.

All Parties

• Competing time demands in short-term or part-time programs, sometimes making it difficult to fully engage.

37

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

DETAILS AND ROTATIONS

Benefits Challenges

Scientists

• Offer generally higher compensation and administrative support.

• Maintain, in some cases, originating-employer affiliation and benefits.

Government

• Allow sustained direct infusion of scientific expertise through longer-term appointments.

Scientists

• Opportunities not well-known within academia.

• Possible conflict of expectations or perceived conflict of interest when maintaining affiliation with originating employer.

Government

• More expensive than shorter-term assignments.

• Overreliance on external supplements of scientific expertise, creating knowledge/talent gaps if funding is reduced or terminated.

CHAPTER 4

39

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

CHAPTER 4. SUCCESSFUL ENGAGEMENT Factors for Effective Initiatives

Chapter 2 presented the general survey results, and chapter 3

highlighted cases and resources gathered from the mechanism

survey. This chapter incorporates broader inputs from the

literature review, research, and international consultations

to present important factors for successful and sustainable

immersive or experiential mechanisms based on lessons learned

and best practices from existing programs around the world.

Factors for Effective InitiativesA key issue for existing efforts is to adequately evaluate and

convey not only short-term outputs and longer-term outcomes

but also broader impact and influence. Understanding return

on investment is important to funding entities, whether they

are government, foundation, NGO, or industry sponsors.

This information is essential for guiding enhancements and

adjustments to mechanisms designed to support productive

science-policy engagement.

For new efforts, it is critical to ensure adequate time to research

needs and determine feasibility, opportunities, and challenges.

This provides a foundation on which to solicit input and engage

necessary stakeholders in order to strategically plan goals

and objectives, with benchmarks for success and evaluation

structures that take advantage of opportunities and address

any barriers. Issues to consider include establishing participant

criteria and selection processes, developing appropriate

operating systems and protocols, securing sufficient initial

funding, promoting widely, and implementing efficiently.

Successful endeavors continuously learn, adapt, and enhance.

Initiatives that falter before they have demonstrated some

success often fail, or struggle to gain the necessary momentum

to grow and prosper to achieve significant impact.

The following elements identified through the landscape

analysis are foundational to successful immersive science-policy

engagement mechanisms (a summary of important elements also

is provided in the accompanying table).

Political/Institutional Support: Well-positioned, respected,

and networked advocates help science-policy engagement

mechanisms launch and thrive. These ambassadors should

be influential and are critical within policy circles, especially

legislatures, parliaments, or government agencies and ministries.

An advisory board of influential thought leaders can facilitate

valuable connections and provide critical insights for success.

Once a mechanism is well established, its alumni participants in

highly visible positions often are among the best champions to

ensure continued support, growth, and prestige.

A demand for scientific input and recognition of its value in policy

are often significant factors for long-term success. Some entities

have a clear mission to conduct or oversee funding for research

and policy analysis and are staffed with scientific professionals

who understand the need for additional inputs and expertise.

Examples in the United States include the White House Office of

Science and Technology Policy, the National Science Foundation,

and the House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space,

and Technology; and in the U.K., the Parliamentary Office of

Science and Technology.

The January 5, 2017, Exit Memo of the White House Office of

Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) highlights “10 Actions

Needed to Foster Continued Federal Innovation,” and second

among them is to “recruit, retain, and empower top S&T talent

in the federal government.”22 As an example, the OSTP itself

has benefited from staff drawn from science-policy connection

programs. In 2016, the OSTP included 16 AAAS Science &

Technology Policy Fellowships alumni among its ranks,

including the first U.S. chief data scientist. Recently launched

U.S. government fellowships and programs are designed to

help achieve this aim, including the Presidential Innovation

Fellowships and the United States Digital Service.

In addition, government bodies with fewer staff or departments

focused on analyzing policy from a science or technology

perspective can be ripe for such input. In some instances,

creating the immersive program cultivates demand from

government entities by first demonstrating the value of direct

engagement by scientists in policy-making environments. An

example is the U.S. Department of State, where a number of

public service fellowship programs have proliferated since the

AAAS STPF program was introduced there in 1980. These include

the William C. Foster Fellows Visiting Scholars Program, the

Franklin Fellows Program, the Jefferson Science Fellowships, and

the Civil Service STEM Fellowships.

40

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

Ultimately, a sense of ownership from the entity benefiting from

the participation of scientists is key; otherwise, mechanisms may

become dispensable. This is especially the case for initiatives

funded externally, such as programs in countries supported by

other governments or remote sponsors, where the effort may

end when external funding ceases if the recipient no longer

fully endorses the project. Selecting a trusted, well-positioned

administrative body within the specific political and cultural

context is critical to helping address this issue.

Broader Impact: Different engagement mechanisms have

their inherent aims; however, if developed well and sustained,

all have an opportunity to yield long-term outcomes beyond

initial contributions to specific policy challenges or immediate

professional development. Many mechanisms focus on

opportunities to apply knowledge to effect positive change, as

well as facilitating professional development to enhance careers.

Most funders, whether public or private, seek broader impacts for

society. In the United States, government investments in research

often have broader impact requirements as a benchmark for

success and among the criteria for continued funding.

Science-policy connection initiatives provide a range of objectives,

including building future leadership for science policy positions

in government, providing career paths beyond academia and

industry, cultivating more effective means of communicating

science, or influencing applied research to address societal

concerns.

Academia benefits from faculty and alumni who are

knowledgeable about the science-funding process and its

leverage points, and can more effectively articulate to funders the

importance of their research and its benefits for society. Scientific

associations thus gain members who are better able to advocate

the role and value of science broadly as well as their specific

discipline. As the ranks of scientists in positions overseeing

funding in government increase—through local, state, or federal

employment, and as elected officials—a significant opportunity

exists to shape the future direction of basic and applied

research to address critical needs, take advantage of emerging

technologies, and cultivate innovation. Industry, in turn, will gain

scientists who understand public-private partnerships and how

regulations are promulgated and influenced.

Effort must be made to frame these outcomes not only to funders

and policymakers but also to universities, industry and other

sectors, the media, and the general public to raise awareness of

the benefits of evidence-based policies and practices, and the

critical role of scientists’ direct engagement to achieve results.

Sustainable Funding: Continuous, stable financial support is

essential for the long-term success and sustainability of science-

policy connection efforts. However, in some situations and

countries, financial support received from outside of government

could violate tax, lobbying, or ethics regulations. External

support for programs engaging non–civil servants in government

could raise political, cultural, or legal conflicts of interest, or

perceptions of undue influence could undermine legitimacy

and credibility. In some contexts, government funding could

be viewed to carry an agenda or political influence that does

not allow unfettered engagement and input. In other cultural

settings, such as in Latin America, where many NGOs and private

foundations are primarily viewed as advocacy organizations,

funding from an NGO source also may not be viewed as credible

or sustainable.

It’s very important to explicitly engage the legislatures. We work

on global change, and the reaction to global change in the first instance very often is legislation. It’s coming down from the global levels and needs to be translated to national levels. So engagement with parliaments is probably more important even than with the executive branch. The advantage is also that government executives live from one minute to the next, not from one election period to the next, and that’s where the parliamentary bodies are very, very important, particularly if you have access to the two houses. We have had more success talking at the parliamentary level than talking at the government level.”

Holm Tiessen, executive director, Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research

41

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

Success stories exist across funding strategies. The AAAS

Science & Technology Policy Fellowships in the executive branch

utilize a strategy that decouples government-agency funding

from the administrative processes organized by AAAS. This

ensures unbiased selection and placement of the fellows in the

federal government. U.S. federal agencies interested in hosting

fellows provide program funding to AAAS, but neither AAAS nor

the agencies specify particular fellows for particular offices.

Following placement interviews, host offices and fellowship

finalists put forward preferences and matches are made based on

this information.

Examples of programs in the U.S. legislative branch funded

by private foundations include the Robert Wood Johnson

Foundation Health Policy Fellows program. In addition, the

Atlantic Philanthropy’s Health and Aging Policy Fellows Program

supports assignments in the U.S. federal executive and legislative

branches, as well as in state and local government.

AAAS S&T Policy Fellowships in the U.S. Congress are sponsored

by individual scientific and engineering societies. The Swiss

Foundation for Science Policy Scholarships are funded by the

Science Policy Scholarships Foundation, created specifically for

this purpose.

The California Science and Technology Policy Fellows Program,

which places fellows in the state’s executive and legislative

branches, is supported by private foundations and corporations.

A 2015 memorandum23 documents the legal and ethics framework

justifying support of the program by external donors and provides

valuable recommendations for establishing similar programs in

other jurisdictions.

The Jefferson Science Fellowship Program, which supports

tenured academics to work in formulating and implementing

U.S. foreign policy and in international development in the

U.S. Department of State and USAID, is administered by the

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and

is supported through a partnership among the U.S. academic

community and the government agencies.

Fellowships funded and operated by governments and research

councils focusing on science-policy engagement and professional

development also thrive. Some of these include the Presidential

Management Fellows Program and the Knauss Marine Policy

Fellowship in the United States, and the POST and Research

Councils fellowships in the U.K..

Think tanks, nongovernmental scientific organizations, and

advocacy groups also fund policy fellowships that place

participants directly in government settings or within their own

policy operation. Examples include the Brookings Institution’s

Legis Congressional Fellowship, the American Astronomical

Society’s John Bahcall Public Policy Fellowship, and the Union of

Concerned Scientists’ Kendall Science Fellows Program.

Meaningful Engagement: The policy realm is new for most

scientists, and according to feedback, pushing outside the

“comfort zone” into policy environments offers deep learning

experiences with lasting results. Well-planned assignments

with support and guidance have been demonstrated to enable

productive learning and contribution.

Engagement opportunities that take advantage of participants’

level of education and fully integrate them into the work of

the office or unit throughout the assignment offer the richest

learning environments, and are often described by participants

as “transformative.” Attentive mentoring from a host entity

supervisor or advisor is a key factor for mutually beneficial and

productive experiences by providing critical counsel, information,

resources, and advice.

Preparation should include a comprehensive orientation to

familiarize participants with politics, processes, procedures,

and protocols in the policy context to which they are assigned

and to network with other participants and key individuals.

These resources serve as a critical component of a successful

and immersive learning experience. Further, regular training and

professional development opportunities aimed at enhancing

skills to span science-policy boundaries can significantly

increase participants’ effectiveness. These may include dialogue

sessions, seminars, workshops, and courses on communicating

with nonscientific stakeholders, covering such topics as framing

messages for policy solutions, building consensus, negotiation,

conflict resolution, project and people management, leadership,

and career exploration.

Some programs conduct orientation and professional

development offerings via internal staff, others with external

trainers or partners, and some with a combination of both.

For example, the Mimshak Fellowships in Israel partners with

the Harold Hartog School of Government and Policy at Tel Aviv

University, and the Empire State Fellows Program in New York

engages the Rockefeller Institute of Government of the State

University of New York to conduct training for their fellows.

42

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

Multi-Perspective Integration: Whether immersive science-

policy engagement mechanisms have a broad focus or a

specific thematic agenda, they benefit from having participants

that represent multiple disciplines, backgrounds, sectors,

geographic regions, genders, and cultural/ethnic perspectives.

This facilitates the inclusion of diverse views to develop

comprehensive, robust solutions to complex policy challenges.

Participants benefit from networking with colleagues across a

wide range of backgrounds, experiences, and sectors to build

relationships for long-term resources and collaborations. While

some initiatives focus on specific career stages, the benefit

of varying career-stage perspectives can still be achieved by

engaging experienced program alumni as well as mentors and

advisors.

Incentives, Compensation, and Support: Although many

scientists in civic engagement activities take the initiative on

a voluntary basis and for altruistic reasons to serve society, it

is essential to facilitate sustained commitment incentives that

recognize and reward such activities. For efforts involving full-

time and longer-term investment of time and effort, adequate

financial compensation and support are essential to attract top-

quality participants and enable their dedicated focus.

This is a particular concern for academic culture, with its primary

focus on publishing, securing grants, and teaching for achieving

tenure, where activities not directly tied to producing research

results are sometimes viewed as a distraction and not linked to

the goal of developing a well-rounded, informed, and engaged

scientist. This challenge was highlighted at the 2015 University

of Michigan national symposium on “Strengthening the Role

of Universities in National Science Policymaking” (Wiesner

Symposium).24 The event’s central theme emphasized that

“campuses must cultivate a culture of public service, encouraging

both faculty and students to become ‘civic scientists.’”

Academics with an understanding of policy, and a related

network of professionals with experience in the field, can

contribute significantly to their institutions through knowledge

of government funding sources and the ability to target research

proposals to government interests and needs. They become

skillful in framing communications to policymakers in order

to garner support for the academic enterprise by conveying

the ways research and innovation contribute to specific

constituencies and the broader economy. This helps policymakers

recognize the critical value universities offer society and

encourage their continuing support. Thus, engagement at the

intersection of science and policy should provide an individual

career boost and provide an institutional asset. Recommendation

no. 5 from the Wiesner Symposium thus states: “Restructure

the faculty evaluation process to explicitly reward science policy

service, outreach and mentoring, and other forms of engagement,

as well as quality of teaching.” Recommendation no. 3 also notes

the need to “create opportunities for students to get involved in

real policy experiences at state and national levels.”

Restructure the faculty evaluation process to explicitly

reward science policy service, outreach and mentoring, and other forms of engagement, as well as quality of teaching.”

Recommendation no. 5 from the Wiesner Symposium: “Strengthening the Role of Universities in National Science Policymaking”, University of Michigan 2015

Appropriate Infrastructure: Organizational infrastructure at the

appropriate scale is necessary to operate well-run, efficient, and

effective programming based on the scope and size of the effort.

The legal frameworks and guidelines to place non–civil servants

in government settings must be in place. Input from the general

survey of the landscape analysis noted that human resources and

recruitment departments in government units in some countries

historically have emphasized requirements for degrees in

humanities, political science, or law for the civil service. While

scientists are often employed as civil servants in government

laboratories, these positions are typically research-focused, with

little connection to policy. The U.K. and the United States have

created pathways for scientists in the civil service with a broad

policy focus. These include the Government Science and

Engineering Profession in the U.K., and the previously mentioned

Presidential Management Fellowships and the Presidential

Innovation Fellowships in the U.S. executive branch of

government.

Most immersive mechanisms identified in the landscape

analysis operate with structured participant selection and

placement processes entailing review panels and interviews.

They also engage in a range of activities, including promotion

and recruitment, monitoring and evaluation, professional

development programming, fundraising and grant management,

cultivating stakeholder relationships, and maintaining an alumni

network. Staff capacity should be sufficient to handle this

diversity of tasks.

43

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

Depending on the political and cultural setting, initiatives may

be best administered in-house by government agencies, within

academia or industry, or by an external organization. If external,

administrative entities should be trusted and credible “boundary

organizations” with a deep understanding of and relationships in

both the policy and scientific worlds, such as national academies

of sciences, scientific societies, or new structures established

specifically to operate the program. An example is the Swiss

Foundation for Science Policy Scholarships. The reputation and

perceived impartiality of the administering organization is often

crucial to the success of the effort.

Measurable Value: Documenting and communicating the

quantitative and qualitative outcomes of immersive science-

policy connection efforts is important and challenging. The

information is critical to determine return on investment and

to guide the evolution of efforts, yet it is often difficult to

demonstrate a direct correlation between participant engagement

and legislative or regulatory actions. Thus, endeavoring to

document the specific ways in which increasing and integrating

scientific capacity in government has resulted in tangible

changes, policies, or regulations being adopted is tremendously

valuable.

Benefits and results can be demonstrated quantitatively by

highlighting specific inputs, documenting the increase in

knowledge of the policy realm, and tracking applications,

placements, and career pursuits. Establishing reporting

instruments that document effort is likewise valuable, such as

through reporting of science communication activities (e.g.,

talking points, presentations, press releases, websites and

writing and editing of policy documents) or outreach efforts (e.g.,

meetings with stakeholders, service on interagency or external

coordinating committees, compilation of public comments).

Knowledge self-assessments at the beginning, midpoint, and

end of participation help measure learning from the embedded

experience and professional development offerings. Social

network analysis helps map expanded connections. And the

tracking of participant career paths spotlights expanding circles

of influence and employment trends for boundary-spanning

professions.

Qualitative evaluation can be achieved by collecting testimonials,

developing case studies, and conducting satisfaction surveys

and interviews with participating scientists and government

offices. These tools are also essential to ascertain the full impact

of science-policy connection efforts. Further, the perceived value

of such connection mechanisms, as well as supply and demand,

can be measured by tracking numbers of applicants, overall

placement requests, actual placements, and the number of

government entities participating and requesting to participate.

Community: Cultivating networks of current and alumni

participants and policymakers within and across science-

policy engagement initiatives supports expanded professional

development, flow of information, resource sharing, and

collaborative activities for broader impact. The short- and long-

range outputs of collective efforts build significantly on individual

engagement, especially for smaller programs. The power of

networks to expand mutually beneficial relationships, enhance

career opportunities, and create critical mass to leverage science

for evidence-based policy was stressed via survey input, focus

groups, and in most reports on science-policy engagement

reviewed for the landscape analysis.

44

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

Summary of Elements of Immersive Science-Policy Engagement Mechanisms

Purpose

Expose scientists to policy processes

Provide scientific input into policymaking

Expose policymakers to benefits of scientific process and inputs

Establish relationships between scientists and policymakers

Train scientists for careers in policy and civil service

Supply—Scientists

Outreach and awareness to recruit highly qualified participants

Meaningful opportunities to contribute and learn

Academic incentives and career flexibility

Demand—Policymakers

Government and policy structures that provide channels for scientific input

Availability and willingness of mentors/supervisors

Well-structured assignments that take advantage of participants’ skills and education

Champions to galvanize support and funding and guide through government bureaucracy

Focus areaGeneral

Thematic (e.g., environment, health, security)

Host institutions

Government: executive, legislative or parliamentary, judicial

Academies of sciences

Scientific societies

Universities

Nonprofit organizations

Think tanks

Multilateral organizations

Funding sources

Government agencies

Scientific societies

International organizations, development agencies

Foundations

Nonprofit organizations

Private sector

Geographic scope

Municipal

State

National

Regional

Global

45

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

Eligibility

Career stage (students, postdocs, mid-career, senior)

Discipline (specific or multidisciplinary)

Sector (academia, industry, government, NGOs)

Nationality

Administration, infrastructure, resources

Respected administrating entity with science and policy networks

Adequate staffing and infrastructure for recruitment, selection, placement, training, monitoring, evaluation, and alumni relations

Participant compensation and benefits structures

Fundraising capacity

DurationLength of assignment/experience

Timeframes of government administration and legislative cycles

Liability, labor laws, ethics

Compliance with tax, lobbying, employment, and ethics rules

Legal status of managing organization

Legal status of participants (volunteer, intern, fellow, employee, contractor)

Professional development

Communication

Leadership

Policy

Networking

Career mentoring

Sustainability

Strong government relations

Institutional stability for maintenance through political fluctuations

Supportive alumni engagement

Long-term funding

Sense of national/local ownership if funded externally

Evaluation, networks, and broader impacts

Inputs to host entity, policy processes, legislation, regulation, communication, and implementation

Impact on participants’ careers

Alumni network and S&T policy leadership

CHAPTER 5

47

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

CHAPTER 5. EXPANDING CAPACITY International Cooperation, Training, Meetings, and Networks

While nearly 200 science-policy connection mechanisms were

identified through the landscape analysis, they are located

primarily in the United States and Europe and targeted mainly

to citizens of the countries where they operate. They also

provide only a small number of participant opportunities

compared to the interest and need for scientists to engage at

the intersection of science and policy. A much larger number of

scientific and policy communities in countries around the world

desire new opportunities to build science-policy relationships to

address national, regional, and global challenges. International

cooperative efforts can help expand national and regional

capacity. Stand-alone trainings, dialogue meetings, and networks

are also essential components for comprehensive international

science-policy engagement.

International CooperationInternational cooperation in science policy is an emerging

dimension of science diplomacy.25 Multi-country and regional

mechanisms can be effective approaches to building

relationships between the scientific and policy communities as

well as between countries. Examples include cases where a single

country has a limited supply of scientists and limited funding

or where there are transboundary issues or themes that benefit

from concerted efforts.

Some fellowship programs operate at the bilateral or regional

level, inviting applications from scientists and engineers from

multiple countries to work on issues relevant to all countries

involved while promoting regional integration and improved

relationships. Examples include the Australian-American Health

Policy Fellowship, open to mid-career U.S. professionals from all

sectors and entailing up to ten months in Australia conducting

research and working with Australian health policy experts

on issues relevant to both countries, and the Congressional

Research Fellowship Program of the Australian National

University, which places graduate and postgraduate students in

the offices of U.S. senators who serve on the Senate committees

on Foreign Relations and Armed Services.

International cooperation and intergovernmental initiatives can

also incentivize countries to test programs with less risk and

cost and can benefit lower-income countries with more limited

resources. The ASEAN-U.S. Science and Technology Fellowships

combine both the north–south cooperative element with an

intergovernmental element to build relationships aimed at

addressing regional issues. Recognizing the need for regional and

national ownership to ensure long-term operation, the program

transitioned from initial administration by a U.S. consulting firm

contracted by USAID to management by the ASEAN Secretariat.

Perhaps the biggest problem is how to develop capacity for

science advice in countries where there are not enough scientists to begin with. Sometimes this is where science advice is most needed. Here is where a regional approach would work: for instance, in the Caribbean islands, where there are so many issues about climate change, disasters, and biodiversity, and there is not enough scientific capacity. It’s not just a national issue.”

Ernesto Fernández Polcuch, Chief of Section, Science Policy and Partnerships, UNESCO

Another example involves the long-standing interest of POST in

the U.K. in developing parliamentary science advice in Africa and

other countries. From 2008 to 2012, it helped develop capacity for

evidence-informed policymaking in the Ugandan Parliament, and

contributed to a strategy for a new three-year U.K. Department

for International Development–funded program titled “Building

Capacity to Use Research Evidence in Africa.” The consortium that

was established, led by the African Institute for Development

Policy, engages both high- and mid-level health policymakers in

Kenya and Malawi, and includes a parliamentary internship

scheme that hosts two research staff members from each

country’s parliament for internships to help develop their skills in

accessing, interpreting, and using evidence in decision-making

48

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

processes and briefing their MPs. Ultimately, the program seeks

to foster “evidence champions” and provide learning

opportunities for other countries in sub-Saharan Africa and

internationally for promoting evidence use in decision making.

In July 2015, POST, the Commission on Science and Technology

of the Mexican Senate, and the Scientific and Technological

Consultative Forum of Mexico signed an agreement to exchange

knowledge and best practices to strengthen parliamentary

advice on S&T between the two countries. The collaboration

has led to the establishment of a new office dedicated to

providing knowledge-based advice to Mexican legislators

regarding science, technology, and innovation, the Oficina de

Información Científica y Tecnológica para el Congreso de la Unión

(INCyTU). The agreement includes a commitment to exchange

representatives of all parties to learn about the methodologies

for evidence-based legislation, such as the preparation of

documents for MPs and the establishment of internship programs

for doctoral students in parliamentarian offices. A similar

agreement was recently enacted between POST and Chile.

The course was a genuine life-changing experience. I had the

opportunity to re-evaluate my strategies when negotiating agreements and setting up the transatlantic initiatives I have led throughout the last few years. Some things are intuitive, but it is still of great importance understanding the mechanics behind successful science diplomacy efforts, and that’s one of the main things I have learned in this course.”

Maria Augusta Arruda-Bullock, pharmacologist from Brazil, participant in 2016 AAAS-TWAS Summer Course on Science Diplomacy

TrainingAs noted in the September 2016 Report on the Future of Scientific

Advice to the United Nations, “science is not an add-on but an

integral part of the response” to address global challenges and

ensure confidence in policies to effect necessary change.26 The

report, produced by the UN secretary-general’s Scientific Advisory

Board, emphasizes that “scientists need to learn more about

policymaking and implementation to engage more productively

with the policy community” and that “training institutes for

scientists and for policymakers at all levels should be established

to build capacity nationally and regionally.”

Likewise, most mechanisms identified through this landscape

analysis entail skill-building professional development

components. The range of topics addressed is broad yet falls

mainly into the three learning tracks of policy, communications,

and leadership. The chart on the next page provides examples of

topics that fit these three general tracks.

In addition to the deep learning provided by immersive programs,

trainings are offered by universities, scientific societies, research

institutions, and international organizations to teach scientists to

better understand policy-making processes and to communicate

their research to policymakers and other nonacademic audiences.

Programs encompass formal and informal higher education

courses, vary in geographical scope from local to global, and

range in duration from a few days to several weeks on an

intensive basis or distributed throughout the year.

Some examples of established and new collaborative

international trainings include:

¡¡ The Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI),

an intergovernmental research organization comprising

19 countries in the Americas that funds research on

transboundary issues of hemispheric scale, conducts

capacity-building events that link scientists and policymakers.

Rotating to different IAI countries, the programs address

strategies and tools to effect solutions for a wide range of

issues related to global change research, including climate

change, biodiversity, air pollution, water and food security,

forest management, and risk and resilience.

¡¡ The World Academy of Sciences (TWAS) operates a summer

course on science diplomacy in Trieste, Italy, in collaboration

with the AAAS Center for Science Diplomacy. Designed for

young scientists interested in connecting their research

to international policymaking, diplomacy, and broader

development goals, the course is meant also for policymakers

interested in learning about the transnational scientific and

49

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

Sample Training Tracks for Science-Policy Engagement

Track 1: Policy

¡¡ Historic and current roles of science in domestic and international public policy.

¡¡ Forces that drive policy and their impact on the workings of science, e.g., economy, culture, values, national/global crisis events, political will.

¡¡ Benefits, challenges, and case studies of evidence-based policy.

¡¡ Intersection of the legislative or parliamentary, judicial, and executive branches of government.

¡¡ Governmental budget processes and their influence on policy.

¡¡ Multiple paths for policy development and implementation within government.

¡¡ Crafting, analyzing, and developing strategy to pitch to policymakers.

¡¡ Role and power of major actors striving to influence policy, e.g., lobbyists, think tanks, advocacy/special interest groups, the media.

¡¡ History and current trends in science diplomacy.

Track 2: Communications

¡¡ Framing science messages for policymakers and the public.

¡¡ Communication tools and methods for different audiences.

¡¡ Styles of writing, public speaking, visual presentations, and exhibits to engage various stakeholders.

¡¡ Strategies to effectively communicate scientific method and theory, uncertainty, and risk to nonscientific audiences.

¡¡ Utilizing social media for science-policy outreach and advocacy.

¡¡ Cultivating positive relationships with the media; in-person and on-camera/radio interviewing skills.

Track 3: Leadership

¡¡ Ethics and integrity in science.

¡¡ Identifying, cultivating, and facilitating collaborative opportunities.

¡¡ Systems analysis, building consensus, fostering cooperation, and negotiation.

¡¡ Navigating different cultures in local, state, federal, and international government settings.

¡¡ Identifying and working with different leadership styles.

¡¡ Effectively engaging in sensitive conversations.

¡¡ Managing vertically and horizontally with supervisors, colleagues, and staff.

¡¡ Leading meetings, teams, and working groups.

¡¡ Efficient program/project management; assessing and managing workflow, deadlines, and priorities.

¡¡ Budgeting and fiscal and contract management.

50

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

technological issues influencing their work, and for research

funders looking to identify ways to build international

networks. The annual event typically brings together upwards

of 40 participants from more than 30 countries.

¡¡ In 2016, the first Summer School on Evidence and Policy

was convened by the European Commission’s Joint

Research Centre (JRC) and the International Institute for

Applied Systems Analysis. The three-day intensive event

brought together early- to mid-career researchers and

policymakers to learn how to optimize the use of scientific

evidence in policymaking. The course combines high-level

panel discussions with master classes on the provision of

evidence in a policy context that cover uncertainty, effective

communication, modeling and big data, strategies to test

policy ideas, and anticipatory foresight and games to

simulate policy scenarios.

The Global Young Academy (GYA) is leading efforts to establish

National Young Academies in developing countries and regionally

to train and connect emerging leaders at the intersection of

science and policy. An example is the Africa Science Leadership

Programme, organized by the GYA, in partnership with the

University of Pretoria, to provide early and mid-career African

academics with leadership, teamwork, and collaboration skills

aimed at enabling them to solve the complex issues that face

Africa and the global community.

Diaspora networks and regional and international networks

can help countries with less capacity to participate in regional

and global dialogues. INGSA is actively striving to close the gap

between the need and existing capacity for science advice. It

hosted its second conference in September 2016, and is focused

on crafting a set of principles and standards to guide science

advice, and on delivering a series of capacity-building workshops

for both scientists and policy practitioners around the world.

In the United States, the Engaging Scientists & Engineers in

Policy (ESEP) initiative has been operating through a consortium

of organizations and universities to support early career

scientists to learn about and contribute to policy. Activities

include topical and skill-building webinars, and capacity-

building and networking events. Among ESEP’s aims is to foster

a paradigm-shift in higher education to embrace cultivation of

public service as a central mission, and in particular to encourage

development of civically engaged scientists.

Also of note is an initiative called 314 Action that was launched in

late 2016 in the United States to train and support scientists and

engineers to run for elected office. The organization is focused on

“electing more leaders to the U.S. Senate, House, State Executive

and Legislative offices who come from STEM backgrounds.”

EducationSeparate from traditional courses and academic programs in

science policy or S&T studies, more and more U.S. universities

are providing policy-focused and cross-boundary training, some

through multi-centric initiatives such as Emerging Leaders in

Science and Society, and some through individual graduate

courses such as the Hurford Science Diplomacy Initiative at The

Rockefeller University, Science Outside the Lab at Arizona State

University, and the Water Diplomacy program at Tufts University.

The University of Rochester, in upstate New York, has instituted

a Science and Technology Policy pathway to prepare its graduate

students to compete for S&T policy fellowships (e.g., AAAS S&T

Policy Fellowship, National Academies Mirzayan Fellowships).

In the European Union, the JRC has launched a pilot Collaborative

Doctoral Partnerships scheme to train a new generation of

doctoral graduates in science and technology with a focus on the

science-policy interface. The program aims to train graduates to

understand research needs at different stages of policy cycles,

and to cultivate their transferable skills to provide scientific

support to policy and conduct science communication and

knowledge management.

In the United States, student-led science policy groups have

grown on campuses around the country, such as the MIT Science

Policy Initiative and recently created science diplomacy clubs

at the University of Pennsylvania, New York University, Yale,

Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and Tuft’s Fletcher

School of Law and Diplomacy. The National Science Policy Group

serves as the network hub for more than fifty campus initiatives

across the country.

Yet in many cases, students and faculty are unaware of efforts

under way at their institutions. “There’s a growing bottom-up

movement among graduate students who are demanding this

training in science policy,” noted Tobin Smith, vice president for

policy at the Association of American Universities and coauthor

of Beyond Sputnik: U.S. Science Policy in the 21st Century. “But

I’ve found that students often don’t even know the resources

available on their own campus.”

51

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

MeetingsMulti-stakeholder meetings bringing together professionals from

academia, government, NGOs, scientific societies, academies

of sciences, think tanks, and industry are among the most

widespread means for connecting scientists with policymakers.

These gatherings may take place multiple times a year, annually,

or biennially; and they may be targeted to local, national,

regional, or global levels.

Local events, often in more informal networking settings, help

establish strong personal and professional connections that

foster collaboration. Some countries have created regular

events in which scientists present their work or simply network

with MPs and others in the science policy arena in their city,

state, or province. Examples include the Bacon & Eggheads

monthly breakfast seminars in Canada and the monthly Science

Breakfasts at the French Embassy in Washington, D.C. The

Science Diplomats Club in Washington also engages embassy

S&T representatives in a monthly dialogue with scientists and

science initiatives. Finland’s Society of Scientists and Parliament

Members, known as TUTKAS, convenes researchers and MPs.

At the U.S. federal level, many scientific and engineering societies

host either independently or collectively Congressional Visit

Days. At these events, society members are trained to present

effectively to their members of Congress and then to visit those

offices to discuss the value of science to policy and its relevance

to specific constituent groups.

There’s a growing bottom-up movement among graduate

students who are demanding this training in science policy. But I’ve found that students often don’t even know the resources available on their own campus.”

Tobin Smith, vice president for policy, Association of American Universities

Some long-running national science policy conferences and multi-

stakeholder meetings include the following:

¡¡ Every year, the U.S. National Academies of Sciences,

Engineering, and Medicine host hundreds of conferences,

workshops, symposia, roundtables, standing committees,

and other gatherings that attract the finest minds in academia

and the public and private sectors. These multi-stakeholder

events serve as essential venues for discussion and debate,

and enable structured dialogue between scientists and

policymakers.

¡¡ For more than 40 years, the annual AAAS Forum on Science

& Technology Policy has convened scientists and engineers,

research administrators, industrial R&D managers,

policy-makers, association officials, students, diplomats,

government affairs specialists, public affairs officers, science

writers, and others interested in the intersection of policy

with S&T.

¡¡ Now in its 18th year, the annual Science Meets Parliament

gatherings in Australia brings together working scientists to

Canberra for a two-day program of professional development

and networking to foster better communication of science to

the media, policymakers, and parliamentarians.

More recently, the Canadian Science Policy Centre (CSPC) was

launched in 2009. It conducts an annual grassroots, nonpartisan

national forum aimed at uniting stakeholders, strengthening

dialogue, and enabling action with respect to current and

emerging issues in national science, technology, and innovation

policy in Canada. The CSPC acts as a hub that (1) promotes active

national dialogue in support of more effective coordination and

collaboration across all stakeholders; (2) nurtures a broad and

evolving community of policy thinkers; and (3) builds national

expertise by introducing and fostering initiatives to train the next

wave of leaders in science, technology, and innovation policy.

In 2015, the inaugural EU Science Meets Parliaments event was

launched, which convenes scientists from all over Europe to

meet with members of the European and national parliaments.

The event was cohosted by the Science and Technology Options

Assessment and the JRC of the European Commission to foster a

structured dialogue between scientists and policymakers.

52

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

Beyond but inclusive of science policy, regional and global

science and society conferences and multi-stakeholder meetings

have been active for many years, and new regional gatherings

have launched in the past decade. Several long-established and

more recent events are listed below.

¡¡ AAAS Annual Meeting: a global multidisciplinary science

gathering, combining scientific sessions, speakers,

professional development seminars, and networking

opportunities attended by more than 5,000 scientists,

engineers, educators, policymakers, students, and journalists

from around the world.

¡¡ World Science Forum: a biennial international event co-

organized by UNESCO, the Hungarian Academy of Sciences,

AAAS and ICSU, as a platform for dialogue on new emerging

issues affecting science, policy and society. The invitation-

only event gathers nearly 1,000 scientists, policy makers,

industry, representatives of the civil society and the media.

¡¡ EuroScience Open Forum: a biennial, pan-European general

science conference dedicated to scientific research and

innovation bringing together more than 4,500 leading

thinkers, innovators, policymakers, journalists, and educators

from more than 90 countries to discuss current and future

breakthroughs in science.

¡¡ Science Agora: Started in Japan in 2006 with the aim to

realize “science harmonized with society” and a “society

harmonized with science” through dialogue and collaboration

of diverse stakeholders.

¡¡ Science Forum South Africa held its first gathering in 2015

to address the role of science, technology, and innovation

in society; to promote international partnerships; and

to facilitate interaction by key science, technology, and

innovation players, including senior government leaders,

scientists, members of industry and civil society, and

students.

¡¡ Latin American and Caribbean Open Science Forum convened

its inaugural event in 2016 drawing senior government

leaders, academics, members of industry and civil society,

and students to address science and promote science-policy

linkages.

Young scientists are ready to take an active role to be the

interface between the policymakers and the people, to help formulate and communicate knowledge findings, in both ways to the policymakers and to the public.”

Ivana Gadjanski, neuroscientist from Serbia, participant in World Science Forum 2015

53

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

NetworksRegional and international networks of scientific organizations

and individuals also build linkages among multiple stakeholders.

Some of these include INGSA, the International Council for

Science, with a membership of 121 national bodies; and

the InterAcademy Partnership, a global grouping of science

academies from 107 countries. In addition, the European

Academies’ Science Advisory Council links together the national

scientific academies of EU member states to coordinate

their provision of independent science advice to European

policymakers.

Organizations and campaigns have also been launched over

the last decade focused on developing global science policy

leadership and networks for early and mid-career scientists.

Among these are the Young Scientists Programme, the Global

Young Academy, the World Association of Young Scientists, and

the International Consortium of Research Staff Associations.

In particular, these entities are addressing integration of early

career researchers into broader high-level policy forums, such as

the World Economic Forum and the World Science Forum.

These four organizations came together for the first time at the

2015 World Science Forum in Budapest to present a unified voice

for the emerging international young scientists’ movement,

which is demanding a seat at the table in policy discussions and

decision making that require scientific input. More than 50 early

career researchers from 30 countries gathered at the event to

analyze challenges and opportunities facing young scientists

globally, identify strategies that link global challenges to career

opportunities, and present policy recommendations to empower

young scientists to leave their impact on the 2030 Sustainable

Development Goals.

Many of the science-policy connection mechanisms identified

through the landscape analysis also support networking among

their alumni and strive to create opportunities for collaboration

among their own participants and with other networks.

While useful efforts have been made to map networks and

international systems addressing science policy at the global

level,27 more strategic effort to actively link these networks of

individuals will enable greater output and expand impact.

CHAPTER 6

55

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This report provides recommendations to support greater

engagement of scientists in policymaking in countries around the

world, and it outlines factors for effective, immersive science-

policy connection mechanisms to help cultivate new generations

of boundary-spanning STEM leaders.

The study revealed that more scientists are interested in

engaging at the intersection of science and policy as compared

to perceived demand from government or availability of

opportunities to engage. The majority of immersive mechanisms

identified as well as most of the trainings and dialogue meetings

highlighted in chapter 5 reported greater numbers of applicants

than availability of slots. There is significant opportunity to build

on this enthusiasm.

Alumni of science-policy connection mechanisms tend to remain

engaged in policy throughout their careers, either in full-time

policy-related positions in government or other sectors or

through volunteer engagement. Those who return to academia

help educate future generations of scientists to understand their

value at the intersection of science and policy. Collectively, they

represent a significant international resource of highly qualified,

adaptable professionals able to span the boundaries of science

and policy to effect solutions for global challenges.

The international landscape analysis concluded with an

overarching recommendation to cultivate and network such

boundary-spanning STEM leaders who can engage successfully

at the intersection of science and policy.

There is a convergence of interest in mechanisms for science-

policy engagement, growing demand from scientists to

participate, and expanding complexity of societal concerns

that science and technology can help address. This presents a

critical nexus of opportunity for organizations and countries to

collaborate to strengthen science-policy linkages, cultivate an

ethos of STEM civic engagement, and foster boundary-spanning

capacity to address global challenges that no nation can solve

independently. This is a pivotal time for systemic action to

achieve these aims.

It is critical for science to be engaged in the decision-making

process more systematically, synthesized in ways that are relevant to current societal problems and challenges, and communicated to political leaders and societal groups in ways that are accessible and comprehensible.

The Future of Scientific Advice to the United Nations: A Summary Report to the Secretary-General of the United Nations from the Scientific Advisory Board, September 2016

56

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

Recommendations

Cultivate and network boundary-spanning STEM leaders around the world to engage at the science-policy interface.

¡¡ Establish more immersive science-policy engagement mechanisms to give scientists the tools to address complex societal

challenges, especially in countries and regions where policymakers are not already well linked to the scientific community.

¡¡ Broaden the diversity of scientists and engineers engaging at the science-policy interface by expanding opportunities for and

recruiting participants from underserved populations and geographic regions, as well as from a variety of disciplines, backgrounds,

cultural perspectives, genders, and career stages.

¡¡ Create opportunities to network and forge connections among participants, alumni, funders, and administrators across

communities to foster innovation and global collaboration.

¡¡ Establish general core competencies and outline sets of skills that empower boundary-spanning expertise in the S&T policy arena

to support shared understanding and aims across different political and cultural environments.

¡¡ Expand and create trainings, courses, meetings, and networking opportunities to facilitate boundary-spanning learning and

connections.

¡¡ Foster incentive structures within academia that reward science-policy engagement, outreach, mentoring, and other avenues of

service to society.

Communicate the applications of science and how they serve society.

¡¡ Foster an ethos of civic engagement internationally by training STEM students on the ability and responsibility of science to help

meet the needs of countries and citizens around the world.

¡¡ Increase training opportunities to researchers, faculty, and students for effective communication about science to non-scientific

audiences, with an emphasis on translating the applications of research to spark innovation and solve problems, in ways that can

be readily understood by the public and policymakers.

¡¡ Demonstrate opportunities for and the value of policy-related nonacademic career paths that provide meaningful avenues to

communicate and apply science for society.

Facilitate knowledge sharing and collaboration.

¡¡ Facilitate the exchange of information about activities and mechanisms so that current efforts can benefit from other models and

experiences, and to inspire the creation of new mechanisms informed by successful practices.

¡¡ Strengthen science diplomacy and advance regional and global cooperation on science and technology policy by cultivating

connections among national, regional, and international science and policy stakeholders.

¡¡ Establish an online global science policy resource and networking hub to provide centralized access to information, tools and

practices, case studies, lessons learned, training and funding opportunities, events, and science policy jobs and related news.

57

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

Endnotes1 United Nations, “Sustainable Development Goals: 17 Goals to Transform Our World,”

http://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals.

2 OECD, Scientific Advice for Policy Making: The Role and Responsibility of Expert Bodies and Individual Scientists, Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers no. 21 (Paris: OECD Publishing, 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5js33l1jcpwb-en.

3 California Council on Science & Technology, Elements of a Successful Science and Technology Policy Fellowship Program for State Legislatures (January 2016), http://fellows.ccst.us/documents/Elements_2016.pdf.

4 The Center for Creative Leadership defines “boundary-spanning leadership” as the capability to create direction, alignment and commitment across boundaries, fields, or sectors to achieve a higher vision or goal (Ernst & Yip, 2009). See: http://www.ccl.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/BoundarySpanningLeadership.pdf.

5 International Network for Government Science Advice, “Principles and Guidelines of Science Advice,” http://www.ingsa.org/ingsa-news/principles-and-guidelines-of-science-advice-2/.

6 Center for Research and Development Strategy, “Toward the Establishment of Principles regarding the Roles and Responsibilities of Science and Government in Policy Making,” Japan Science and Technology Agency, CRDS-FY2011-SP-09, 2012, https://www.jst.go.jp/crds/pdf/en/CRDS-FY2011-SP-09_EN.pdf.

7 See the InterAcademy Council website, http://interacademycouncil.net/24770/29587.aspx.

8 “Declaration of the 2015 Budapest World Science Forum on the Enabling Power of Science,” adopted November 7, 2015, http://www.sciforum.hu/declaration/index.html.

9 Tateo Arimoto and Yasushi Sato, “Rebuilding Public Trust in Science for Policy-making,” Science 337, no. 6099 (September 7, 2012): pp. 1176–77, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/337/6099/1176.full#ref-11.

10 Tateo Arimoto and Yasushi Sato, “Five Years after Fukushima: Scientific Advice in Japan,” Palgrave Communications, June 7, 2016, http://www.palgrave-journals.com/articles/palcomms201625#ref3.

11 Oxford Dictionaries’ word of the year for 2016 was “post-truth”—an adjective defined as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”

12 C. P. Snow’s “Two Cultures” was part of a 1959 lecture in which he lamented the cultural divide separating two great areas of human intellectual activity, science and the arts. Snow argued that practitioners in both areas should build bridges to advance human knowledge and benefit society.

13 Kathy Wren, “Barnard Lecture: Science Must Change Radically to Solve Global Challenges,” AAAS, July 3, 2015, https://www.aaas.org/news/stpf/barnard-lecture-science-must-change-radically-solve-global-challenges.

14 Geoffrey Boulton and Heide Hackmann, Science for a sustainable and just world: a new framework for global science policy? UNESCO Science Report – 2015, Towards 2030. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, France. ISBN 978-92-3-100129-1.

15 E. William Colglazier, “Encourage Governments to Heed Scientific Advice,” Nature 537, no. 7622 (September 28, 2016), http://www.nature.com/news/encourage-governments-to-heed-scientific-advice-1.20695.

16 James Wilsdon, Kristiann Allen, and Katsia Paulavets, “Science Advice to Governments: Diverse Systems, Common Challenges,” briefing paper, Auckland conference, August 28–29, 2014, http://ingsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/Science_Advice_to_Governments_Briefing_Paper_25-August.pdf.

17 Roope Kaaronen, Scientific Support for Sustainable Development Policies: A Typology of Science–Policy Interfaces with Case Studies, Sitra Studies 118 (Helsinki: Sitra, 2016), http://www.sitra.fi/julkaisut/Selvityksiä-sarja/Selvityksia118.pdf.

18 Roger A. Pielke Jr., The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007).

19 See “World Bank Country and Lending Groups,” https://datahelpdesk.worldbank.org/knowledgebase/articles/906519.

20 Combining “very important” and “extremely important” responses.

21 Harold Hartog School of Government and Policy, Tel Aviv University, https://en-social-sciences.tau.ac.il/government/good-government.

22 See https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/administration/cabinet/exit-memos/office-science-and-technology-policy

23 See http://fellows.ccst.us/documents/Funding_memo_2015.pdf.

24 Jerome B. Wiesner Symposium, University of Michigan, March 30–31, 2015; symposium summary, February 2016. https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=dW1pY2guZWR1fHdpZXNuZXItc3ltcG9zaXVtfGd4OjIwM2NjYjA3ZjVlNGVhYzk.

25 Peter D. Gluckman, “Science Advice to Governments: An Emerging Dimension of Science Diplomacy,” Science & Diplomacy, June 9, 2016, http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/article/2016/science-advice-governments.

26 UNESCO, The Future of Scientific Advice to the United Nations: A Summary Report to the Secretary-General of the United Nations from the Scientific Advisory Board (Paris: UNESCO, 2016), http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002458/245801e.pdf.

27 Arimoto and Sato, http://www.palgrave-journals.com/articles/palcomms201625.

58

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

FELLOWSHIPS (generally one year or longer) Country Website

ASEAN-U.S. Science and Technology Fellowship Program

ASEANhttps://www.usaid.gov/asia-regional/asean-us-science-and-technology-fellows-program

Australian-American Health Policy Fellowship Australiahttp://www.commonwealthfund.org/grants-and-fellowships/fellowships/australian-american-health-policy-fellowship

ANU U. S. Congressional Research Fellowship Program Australiahttps://crawford.anu.edu.au/study/intern-fellow-programs/us-congressional-research-fellowship-program

Harkness Fellowships in Health Care Policy and Practice

Australiahttp://www.commonwealthfund.org/grants-and-fellowships/fellowships/harkness-fellowships

Canadian Science Policy Fellowships Canada https://www.mitacs.ca/en/canadian-science-policy-fellowship

Health Canada Science Policy Fellowships Program Canadahttp://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/rescar/fellow-bours/science-pol-eng.php

DST-STI Policy Fellowship Programme Indiahttp://dst.gov.in/sites/default/files/DST_STI_Policy_Fellowships%20Advts.pdf

Mimshak Science Policy Fellowships Program Israel http://www.mimshak.org.il

Ian Axford (New Zealand) Fellowships in Public Policy* New Zealand http://www.fulbright.org.nz/awards/usscholar/axford

Smart Nation Fellowship Programme Singapore https://fellowships.data.gov.sg

Stiftung Wissenschaftliche Politikstipendien (Swiss Foundation for Science Policy Scholarships)

Switzerland www.politikstipendien.ch

NERC Policy Placement Scheme for Researchers and Policymakers

U.K. http://www.nerc.ac.uk/funding/available/schemes/placements

University of Cambridge Junior Policy Fellowships U.K.http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/policy-fellowships/junior-policy-fellows

AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships U.S.http://www.aaas.org/program/science-technology-policy-fellowships

AACP-AAAS Congressional Fellowship Program U.S.http://www.aacp.org/career/scholarresidence/Pages/AACPAAASCongressionalFellowshipProgram.aspx

AAS John Bahcall Public Policy Fellowship U.S. https://aas.org/programs/john-bahcall-public-policy-fellowship

ACS Public Policy Fellowships U.S.http://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/policy/policyfellowships.html

APPENDIX A:

Science-Policy Engagement Mechanisms

– Listed in alphabetical order by country under each mechanism model.

– Programs listed may place participants within government settings (municipal, state, regional, international) or outside of government.

– This list is not exhaustive or complete; it presents a broad range of mechanisms that embed participants in assignments with a policy focus.

– Inclusion in the list does not imply endorsement by AAAS, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, or any other entity.

* Programs open to applicants beyond STEM disciplines.

59

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

AERA Congressional Fellowship U.S.http://www.aera.net/Research-Policy-Advocacy/AERA-Congressional-Fellowship

AGI William L. Fisher Congressional Geoscience Fellowship

U.S.https://www.americangeosciences.org/policy/internships-and-fellowships#PolicyFellowship

AGU Congressional Science Fellowship U.S. http://sciencepolicy.agu.org/congressional_fellows

AIP Congressional Science Fellowship Program (with ASA)

U.S. https://www.aip.org/policy/fellowships/cf

AIP State Department Science Fellowship U.S. https://www.aip.org/policy/fellowships/sdf

AMS Congressional Science Fellowship U.S.https://www2.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/policy/congressional-science-fellowship

AMS-AAAS Congressional Fellowship in Government U.S.http://www.ams.org/programs/ams-fellowships/ams-aaas/ams-aaas-congressional-fellowship

AND Public Health Fellowships U.S.http://www.eatrightpro.org/resource/news-center/member-updates/events-and-deadlines/2017-public-health-fellowship-in-government

ANS Glenn T. Seaborg Congressional Science and Engineering Fellowship

U.S. http://www.ans.org/honors/cfellowship

APA Congressional Fellowship Program U.S. http://www.apa.org/about/awards/congress-fellow.aspx

APA Executive Branch Science Fellowship Program U.S. http://www.apa.org/about/awards/science-fellowship.aspx

APAICS Congressional Fellowship Program U.S. http://apaics.org/congressional-fellows

APHA Public Health Fellowship in Government U.S.http://www.apha.org/professional-development/apha-internships-and-fellowships/public-health-fellowship

APS Congressional Science Fellowships U.S. http://www.aps.org/policy/fellowships/congressional.cfm

APS Early Career Advocacy Fellowship U.S.http://www.the-aps.org/mm/SciencePolicy/Advocacy/Advocacy-Fellowship

APSA Congressional Fellowship Program U.S. http://www.apsanet.org/cfp

APTR-CDC Preventive Medicine and Public Health Fellowship Program

U.S. http://www.aptrweb.org/?page=fellowships_cdc

ASA Lansdale Public Policy Fellowship U.S.http://www.asahq.org/advocacy/federal-activities/items-of-interest/lansdale-public-policy-fellowship

ASA/CSSA/SSSA Congressional Science Fellowship Program

U.S. https://www.agronomy.org/science-policy/fellowship

ASBMB Science Policy Fellowship Program U.S. https://www.asbmb.org/Advocacy/Fellowship

ASME Congressional Fellows Program U.S.https://www.asme.org/about-asme/get-involved/advocacy-government-relations/federal-fellows-program/congressional-fellowships

* Programs open to applicants beyond STEM disciplines.

60

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

ASH Congressional Fellowship Program U.S. http://www.hematology.org/Advocacy/6872.aspx

ASHG Genetics & Education Fellowship U.S. http://www.ashg.org/pages/policy_fellowship.shtml

ASM Congressional Science Fellowship U.S.https://www.asm.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7535

ASMBB Science Policy Fellowship Program U.S. https://www.asbmb.org/Advocacy/Fellowship

ASME Federal Government Fellowship Program U.S.https://www.asme.org/about-asme/get-involved/advocacy-government-relations/federal-fellows-program

ASME Foundation Swanson Fellowship: Advanced Manufacturing National Program Office

U.S.https://www.asme.org/about-asme/get-involved/advocacy-government-relations/federal-fellows-program/foundation-swanson-fellowship-advanced

ASPPH/NHTSA Public Health Fellowships (multiple programs)

U.S. http://www.aspph.org/study/fellowships-and-internships

AVMA Fellowship Program U.S.https://www.avma.org/advocacy/getinvolved/pages/avma-fellowship-program.aspx

BPS Congressional Policy Fellowship U.S.http://www.biophysics.org/AwardsFunding/CongressionalPolicyFellowship/tabid/5482/Default.aspx

Brookings Institute Legis Congressional Fellowship* U.S.https://www.brookings.edu/fellowships-programs/legis-congressional-fellowship

BSCES Legislative Fellow Program U.S.http://www.bsces.org/outreach-advocacy/advocacy/legislative-fellow-102

CCST California Science and Technology Policy Fellowship

U.S. http://fellows.ccst.us

Congressional Black Caucus Foundation Policy Fellowships (three programs)*

U.S. http://www.cbcfinc.org/fellowships

Congressional Budget Office Visiting Scholars U.S. https://www.cbo.gov/about/careers/visitingscholars

Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute Public Policy Fellowship Program

U.S. http://chci.org/programs/public_policy_fellowship

Consortium for Ocean Leadership Franck Cushing Marine Science Policy Fellowship

U.S.http://policy.oceanleadership.org/who-we-are/policy-opportunities/frank-m-cushing-science-policy-fellowship

CORO Fellowships* U.S. http://www.corofellowship.org

Council on Foreign Relations International Fellowship in Nuclear Security

U.S. http://www.cfr.org/thinktank/fellowships/iaf_nuclear.html

DOD ARPA-E Fellows U.S. https://arpa-e.energy.gov/?q=site-page/arpa-e-fellows

DOE Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowship Program

U.S. https://science.energy.gov/wdts/einstein

DOE Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Science and Technology Policy Fellowships

U.S.https://energy.gov/eere/education/energy-efficiency-and-renewable-energy-science-and-technology-policy-fellowships

Empire State Fellows Program* U.S. https://www.dos.ny.gov/newnyleaders/fellows_app.html

* Programs open to applicants beyond STEM disciplines.

61

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

EPA Faculty Fellowship Program, National Research Council

U.S.https://www.epa.gov/careers/fellowships-scholarships-and-post-doctoral-opportunities#nas

ESA Science Policy Fellows Program U.S.http://www.entsoc.org/sci-pol/esa-science-policy-fellows-program

FDA Commissioner’s Fellowship Program U.S.http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WorkingatFDA/FellowshipInternshipGraduateFacultyPrograms/CommissionersFellowshipProgram/default.htm

FDA Tobacco Regulatory Science Fellowship U.S.http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Activities/Education/FDAFellowship.aspx

Foster America U.S. http://www.foster-america.org

Fulbright-Clinton Public Policy Fellowships U.S.http://us.fulbrightonline.org/about/types-of-awards/fulbright-clinton-public-policy

FUSE Corps* U.S. http://www.fusecorps.org

Genetics and Public Policy Fellowship U.S. http://www.genome.gov/10003979

Georgetown University Government Affairs Institute Capitol Hill Fellowship*

U.S.http://gai.georgetown.edu/courses-programs/capitol-hill-fellowship

GSA Congressional Science Fellowship U.S. http://www.geosociety.org/csf

Health and Aging Policy Fellows Program U.S. http://www.healthandagingpolicy.org

Hellman Fellowship in Science and Technology Policy, American Academy of Arts and Sciences

U.S.https://www.amacad.org/content/about/about.aspx?d=96&t=4&s=94

Hubert H. Humphrey Fellowship Program U.S. https://www.humphreyfellowship.org

IDA STPI Policy Fellowship Program U.S.https://www.ida.org/en/STPI/STPIResearchStaff/FellowshipProgram.aspx

IEEE-USA Government Fellowships U.S. http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/GOVFEL

ION Government Fellowship Program U.S. http://www.ion.org/membership/government-fellows.cfm

Jefferson Science Fellowship Program U.S. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/Jefferson

Mellon/ACLS Public Fellows U.S. https://www.acls.org/programs/publicfellowscomp

Millennium Challenge Corporation Science & Technology Fellowship

U.S. https://mccif.asu.edu

MRS Congressional Fellows U.S. http://www.mrs.org/congressional-fellows

NAS Gilbert S. Omenn Fellowship U.S.http://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/Activities/Education/OmennFellowship.aspx?_ga=1.227308505.599393614.1485994039

NAS Gulf Science Policy Fellowships U.S. http://www.nationalacademies.org/gulf/fellowships/index.html

* Programs open to applicants beyond STEM disciplines.

62

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

NCHS/AcademyHealth Health Policy Fellowships U.S. http://www.academyhealth.org/nchs

NOAA John A. Knauss Marine Policy Fellowship U.S.http://seagrant.noaa.gov/FundingFellowships/KnaussFellowship.aspx

OSA Arthur H. Guenther Congressional Fellowship Program

U.S.http://www.osa.org/en-us/about_osa/public_policy/congressional_fellowships/guenther

OSA/MRS Congressional Fellowship U.S.http://www.osa.org/en-us/about_osa/public_policy/congressional_fellowships/osamrs

Partnership for Public Service Civil Service Fellows Program

U.S.https://ourpublicservice.org/about-us/civil-service-fellows-program.php

Paul and Daisy Soros Fellowships for New Americans* U.S. https://www.pdsoros.org

Presidential Innovation Fellows U.S. https://presidentialinnovationfellows.gov

Presidential Management Fellowships U.S. https://www.pmf.gov

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health Policy Fellows

U.S. http://www.healthpolicyfellows.org/home.php

Sasakawa USA Congressional Fellowship Program U.S.https://spfusa.org/programs/sasakawa-usa-congressional-fellowship-program

SFN Policy Fellowships U.S.https://www.sfn.org/awards-and-funding/individual-prizes-and-fellowships

SHINE Applied Public Health Informatics Fellowship U.S. http://www.shinefellows.org/aphif-2

SME Congressional Fellowship Program U.S.http://www.smenet.org/about-sme/government-affairs/congressional-fellowship-program

Smithsonian Institute James Smithson Fellowship* U.S.https://www.smithsonianofi.com/fellowship-opportunities/james-smithson-fellowship-program

Soros Justice Advocacy Fellowships* U.S.https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/grants/soros-justice-fellowships

SPIE Arthur H. Guenther Congressional Fellowship U.S. http://spie.org/about-spie/public-policy/policy-fellowships

SPSSI James Marshall Public Policy Fellowship U.S.http://www.spssi.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewPage&pageID=747&nodeID=1

SRCD Policy Fellowships U.S. http://www.srcd.org/policy-media/policy-fellowships

SSSA Congressional Science Fellowship U.S. https://www.soils.org/science-policy/fellowship

State Department Civil Service STEM Fellowships U.S. https://careers.state.gov/intern/other-programs/civil-service-fellowship-programs

State Department Franklin Fellows Program* U.S. https://careers.state.gov/work/fellowships/franklin-fellows

State Department William C. Foster Fellows Visiting Scholars Program*

U.S. https://www.state.gov/t/avc/c40184.htm

* Programs open to applicants beyond STEM disciplines.

63

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

STPI Policy Fellowship Program U.S.https://www.ida.org/en/STPI/STPIResearchStaff/FellowshipProgram.aspx

Supreme Court Fellows Program* U.S. https://www.supremecourt.gov/fellows/default.aspx

TechCongress Congressional Innovation Fellowship U.S. https://www.techcongress.io/the-fellowship

UCS Kendall Science Fellows Program U.S.http://www.ucsusa.org/about/kendall-science-fellows.html#.VnRmTN-rTR1

USAID Democracy Fellows and Grants Program* U.S.http://www.iie.org/Programs/USAID-Democracy-Fellows-and-Grants-Program#.WKG7IhIrJE4

USAID Global Health Fellowships* U.S. https://www.ghfp.net

USAID Payne International Development Fellowship* U.S.http://www.paynefellows.org/?areaid=2&contentid=941&CFID=176&CFTOKEN=61AD4373-F629-4221-9EC195AB5B9C9759

U.S. Government Recent Graduates Program* U.S.https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/hiring-information/students-recent-graduates/#url=graduates

White House Fellowships* U.S. https://www.whitehouse.gov/participate/fellows

Winston Health Policy Fellowship* U.S. http://www.winstonfellowship.org

Women’s Policy Inc. Congressional Fellowships on Women and Public Policy*

U.S. http://www.womenspolicy.org/our-work/congressional-fellows

Woodrow Wilson Higher Education Policy Fellowship* U.S.http://woodrow.org/news/grant-new-higher-education-policy-fellowship-program

INTERNSHIPS (generally less than one year) Country Website

Australian Academy of Science Policy Internship Australiahttps://www.science.org.au/news-and-events/newsletters/emcr-pathways-newsletter/emcr-pathways-issue-8/australian-academy

Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering

Australia http://mams.rmit.edu.au/9x842t7iymz5.pdf

Australia National University US Congressional Research Fellowship Program

Australiahttps://crawford.anu.edu.au/study/intern-fellow-programs/us-congressional-research-fellowship-program

NERC Research Council Policy Internships Scheme U.K.http://www.nerc.ac.uk/funding/available/postgrad/advanced/policy-interns

POST Parliamentary Academic Fellowship Scheme U.K.http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/offices/bicameral/post/fellowships/parliamentary-academic-fellowship-scheme

POST Fellowships U.K.http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/offices/bicameral/post/fellowships

UCL Postgraduate secondments to Whitehall U.K.http://www.ucl.ac.uk/european-institute/news-repository/pg-secondments

AAAS Science Policy Internships U.S. http://www.aaas.org/page/internship-opportunities

* Programs open to applicants beyond STEM disciplines.

64

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

AAU Internship Program U.S. https://www.aau.edu/about/article.aspx?id=6294

AGI Geoscience Policy Internship U.S.http://www.americangeosciences.org/policy/internships-and-fellowships#PolicyInternship

AIBS Policy Internships and Fellowships* U.S. http://www.aibs.org/public-policy/student_opportunities.html

APAICS Summer Internship Program U.S. http://apaics.org/summer-interns

APLU Governmental Affairs Internship U.S.http://www.aplu.org/members/jobs-at-aplu-and-member-institutions/employment-opportunities/governmental-affairs-internship

ASPPH Public Health Internship U.S. http://www.aspph.org/study/fellowships-and-internships

Avalere FDA Fellowship Program U.S. http://avalere.com/careers/fda-fellowship-program

Brookings Center for Technology Innovation Internship U.S. http://www.brookings.edu/about/employment#/?tab=1

Center for American Progress Internships U.S. https://www.americanprogress.org/about/internships

Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute Congressional Internship Program

U.S. http://chci.org/programs/internships

DHS STEM Summer Internship Program U.S. http://www.orau.gov/dhseducation/internships

DOE Scholars Program* U.S. http://orise.orau.gov/doescholars

Economic Innovation Group Policy Fellowship* U.S.http://eig.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/EIG-Fall-2016-Policy-Fellow-Job-Description.pdf

Eben Tisdale Fellowship, Fund for American Studies* U.S. https://tfas.org/programs/tisdale-fellowship

Google Public Policy Fellowship* U.S. https://www.google.com/policyfellowship

Herbert Scoville Jr. Peace Fellowship* U.S. http://scoville.org

Hertog Foundation Summer Policy Fellowships U.S. https://hertogfoundation.org/our-programs

IDA Summer Associates Program U.S. https://www.ida.org/en/CareersAtIDA/SummerAssociates

Lewis-Burke Associates LLC Summer Internship U.S. http://www.lewis-burke.com/internship

Lloyd V. Berkner Space Policy Internships U.S. http://sites.nationalacademies.org/SSB/SSB_052239

MIT Washington, DC Summer Internship Program U.S. http://web.mit.edu/summerwash/about/index.html

* Programs open to applicants beyond STEM disciplines.

65

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

NAS Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellowships

U.S.http://sites.nationalacademies.org/PGA/policyfellows/PGA_161011

NCSE Science Policy Internships U.S. https://www.ncseglobal.org/employment

NIH Office of Intramural Training and Education: multiple programs, some with policy components

U.S. https://www.training.nih.gov/fellowships_at_the_nih

NSF Summer Scholars Internship Program U.S. http://nsf.gov/od/oia/activities/interns/index.jsp#ssip

Population Reference Bureau Policy Communication Fellows

U.S.http://www.prb.org/About/ProgramsProjects/Policy-Communication-Fellows

Potomac Institute for Policy Studies Internship Program

U.S. http://www.potomacinstitute.org/about-us/internships

RAND Graduate Student Summer Associate Program U.S. http://www.rand.org/about/edu_op/fellowships/gsap.html

Research!America Science Policy Internships U.S. http://www.researchamerica.org/sciencepolicyinternship

Society of Physics Internships U.S. https://www.spsnational.org/programs/internships

UCSF Graduate Student Internships for Career Exploration Program

U.S. http://gsice.ucsf.edu/info-students

Udall Foundation Native American Congressional Internship*

U.S. http://www.udall.gov/OurPrograms/Internship/Internship.aspx

University of California Science Policy Internship Program

U.S. http://ucdc.edu/node/769

University of Virginia Washington Policy Internship U.S.http://www.eands.virginia.edu/portfolio-item/washington-policy-interns

U.S. Government Internship Program* U.S.https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/hiring-information/students-recent-graduates/#url=graduates

U.S. House Committee on Science, Space & Technology

U.S. https://science.house.gov/contact

The Washington Center Academic Internship Program* U.S. http://www.twc.edu/internships

Washington Internships for Students of Engineering U.S. http://www.wise-intern.org

Woodrow Wilson Center Science & Technology Innovation Program Policy Internships

U.S.http://woodrow.org/news/grant-new-higher-education-policy-fellowship-program

Woodrow Wilson Higher Education Policy Fellowship U.S.http://woodrow.org/news/grant-new-higher-education-policy-fellowship-program

Woodrow Wilson Center Internships U.S. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/internships

Women’s Policy Research Institute Mariam K. Chamberlain Fellowship in Women and Public Policy

U.S. http://www.iwpr.org/about/fellowships

* Programs open to applicants beyond STEM disciplines.

66

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

* Programs open to applicants beyond STEM disciplines.

DETAILS AND ROTATIONS Country Website

Recruitment of Policy Leaders Program* Canadahttp://www.psc-cfp.gc.ca/sas-sde/stf-dot/prgrm/rpl-prl/index-eng.htm

Civil Service in Government for Scientists and Engineers U.K.https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/civil-service-government-science-engineering

UCL Postgraduate Secondments to Whitehall U.K.http://www.ucl.ac.uk/european-institute/news-repository/pg-secondments

Government Office for Science U.K.https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/312972/14-797-gse-training1.pdf

Health and Human Services Emerging Leaders Program U.S. http://hhsu.learning.hhs.gov/elp

National Science Foundation Rotator Program U.S. https://www.nsf.gov/careers/rotator

National Science Foundation Visiting Scientist, Engineer, and Educator (VSEE) Program

U.S. https://www.nsf.gov/careers/rotator/vsee.jsp

Office of Personnel Management Intergovernmental Personnel Act

U.S.https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/hiring-information/intergovernment-personnel-act

Office of Personnel Management Pathways Program U.S.https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/hiring-information/students-recent-graduates/#url=Overview

Patent and Trademark Office Edison Visiting Scholar Program

U.S.https://www.uspto.gov/learning-and-resources/ip-programs-and-awards/edison-visiting-scholar-program

PAIRING SCHEMES Country Website

Science meets Parliament Australiahttp://scienceandtechnologyaustralia.org.au/event/science-meets-parliament-2017

Members of European Parliament (MEP)—Scientists Pairing Scheme

EUhttp://www.europarl.europa.eu/stoa/cms/home/activities/mepscientist

Members of Parliament—Members of the Academy of Sciences—Young researchers

Francehttp://www.academie-sciences.fr/archivage_site/en/pairing_2012.pdf

The Society of Scientists and Parliament Members TUTKAS

Finlandhttps://www.eduskunta.fi/EN/kansanedustajat/verkostot/Pages/default.aspx

British Ecological Society Parliamentary Shadowing Scheme

U.K. http://www.britishecologicalsociety.org/policy/opportunities/parliamentary-shadowing-scheme

CSaP Policy Fellowships U.K. http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/policy-fellowships/policy-fellows

The Royal Society Pairing Scheme U.K. https://royalsociety.org/grants-schemes-awards/pairing-scheme

UCL Public Policy placements U.K.https://www.ucl.ac.uk/public-policy/for-researchers/policy-placements

Spanish “Ambassadors for Science” program U.K.-Spainhttps://www.fecyt.es/en/noticia/first-shadowing-programme-between-scientists-and-diplomats-starts-london

67

C O N N E C T I N G S C I E N T I S T S T O P O L I C Y A R O U N D T H E W O R L D • A A A S

AAAS American Association for the Advancement of Science, U.S.

AACP American Association of Colleges of Pharmacy, U.S.

AAS American Astronomical Society, U.S.

AAU Association of American Universities, U.S.

ACA Acoustical Society of America, U.S.

ACS American Chemical Society, U.S.

AERA American Educational Research Association, U.S.

ACLS American Council of Learned Societies, U.S.

AGI American Geosciences Institute, U.S.

AGU American Geophysical Union, U.S.

AIBS American Institute of Biological Sciences, U.S.

AIP American Institute of Physics, U.S.

AMS American Mathematical Society, U.S.

AMS American Meteorological Society, U.S.

AND American Academy of Nutrition, U.S.

ANS American Nuclear Society, U.S.

ANU Australian National University, Australia

APA American Psychological Association, U.S.

APAICS Asian Pacific American Institute for Congressional Studies

APHA American Public Health Association, U.S.

APLU Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, U.S.

APS American Physical Society, U.S.

APSA American Political Science Association, U.S.

APTR Association for Prevention Teaching and Research, U.S.

ASA American Society of Agronomy, U.S.

ASA American Society of Anesthesiologists, U.S.

ASA American Sociological Association, U.S.

ASBMB American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, U.S.

ASEAN Association of Southeast Asian Nations, Asia

ASH American Society of Hematology, U.S.

ASHG American Society of Human Genetics, U.S.

ASM American Society for Microbiology, U.S.

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers

ASPPH Association of Schools of Public Health, U.S.

AVMA American Veterinary Medical Association, U.S.

BPS Biophysical Society, U.S.

BSCES Boston Society of Civil Engineers Section, U.S.

CDC Centers for Disease Control, U.S.

CSaP Center for Science and Policy, Cambridge, U.K.

CSSA Crop Science Society of America, U.S.

DHS Department of Homeland Security, U.S.

DOD Department of Defense, U.S.

DOE Department of Energy, U.S.

DST Department of Science & Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India

ESA Entomological Society of America, U.S.

EPA Environmental Protection Agency, U.S.

FDA Food and Drug Administration, U.S.

GSA Geological Society of America, U.S.

IDA Institute for Defense Analyses, U.S.

IEEE USA Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers U.S.A, U.S.

ION Institute of Navigation, U.S.

MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology, U.S.

MRS Materials Research Society, U.S.

NAS National Academy of Sciences, U.S.

NCHS National Center for Health Statistics, U.S.

NCSE National Council for Science and the Environment, U.S.

NERC Natural Environment Research Council, U.K.

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.

NIH National Institutes of Health, U.S.

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S.

NSF National Science Foundation, U.S.

OSA The Optical Society, U.S.

POST Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, U.K.

SAE Society for Automotive Engineers, U.S.

SFN Society for Neuroscience, U.S.

SHINE Strengthening Health Systems through Interprofessional Development Education, U.S.

SME Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, U.S.

SPIE International Society for Optics and Photonics, U.S.

SPSSI Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, U.S.

SRCD Society for Research in Child Development, U.S.

SSSA Soil Science Society of America, U.S.

STPI Science and Technology Policy Institute, U.S.

TMS The Mining, Metals, and Materials Society, U.S.

UCL University College London, U.K.

UCSF University of California, San Francisco, U.S.

USAID U.S. Agency for International Development, U.S.

Glossary Of Acronyms

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)

is the world’s largest general scientific society and publisher of

the Science family of journals (www.sciencemag.org). Science has

the largest paid circulation of any peer-reviewed general science

journal in the world. AAAS was founded in 1848 and includes

nearly 250 affiliated societies and academies of sciences, serving

10 million individuals. The non-profit AAAS is open to all and

fulfills its mission to “advance science and serve society” through

initiatives in science policy, international programs, science

education, public engagement, and more. For information about

AAAS go to www.aaas.org.

aaas.org/GlobalSciencePolicy

@AAAS Fellowships

@SciDip

facebook.com/AAASSandTPolicyFellowships

facebook.com/sciencediplomacy

globalsciencepolicy@aaas.org

PHOTO CREDITS:

Cover: AAAS-TWAS Summer Course on Science Diplomacy, Trieste, Italy. Credit: Demis Albertacci.

Chapter 1: Year of Light Reception at World Science Forum 2015, Budapest. Credit: Mudra Laszlo, Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

Chapter 2: Global Young Academy Annual General Meeting 2016, The Netherlands. Credit: Uttam Babu Shrestha.

Chapter 3: Hungarian Parliament. Credit: Hungarian Academy of Sciences.

Chapter 4: Global Young Academy Annual General Meeting 2014, Santiago, Chile. Credit: Uttam Babu Shrestha.

chapter 5: AAAS-TWAS Summer Course on Science Diplomacy, Trieste, Italy. Credit: Demis Albertacci.

Chapter 6: Markus Pfaff, Shutterstock.