REPORT : Study on ‘Institutionalizing Science Advice to Governments

The provision of appropriate science advice to governments is of national, regional, and global importance. However, many countries, especially in the developing world, lack effective framework to provide science advice to governments, which was laid bare during the COVID-19 pandemic. Hence, there is an urgent need to describe and analyse the structures and processes providing science advice to governments with a view to strengthening science advice. Science advice requires synthesizing and brokering valid, relevant, and reliable scientific evidence in respect of different policies. The National Academy of Sciences of Sri Lanka conducted a study on the status and processes of institutionalizing Science Advice to Governments in the Australasian region. The aims of the study were to a) propose and facilitate the development and strengthening of systematic science advice in member countries and its institutionalization b) Improve awareness among partners on a range of laws and regulations that exist legitimizing institutions and the processes used for government science advice c) develop capacities of participating academies in providing science advice d) enable academies to play a role and be part of the science advice process The methodology included administration of a structured questionnaire to gather data for the Situation Analysis with respect to science advice in partner countries. The questionnaire responses were categorized under several headings identified as the ‘Colombo Framework’: Selection of advisors, organizational structures to provide advice, the process followed to collate and synthesize advice, the process of communication, and evaluation of the process and impact of advice. The results showed a diversity of responses indicating a range of structures and processes: • The structures and types of advisors included, chief science advisor or advisors, a science advisory office or agency, science advisory boards, science advisory councils and ad-hoc arrangements during emergencies or crises, such as task forces. • Selection of advisors varied from appointments by an executive authority to nominations by science organizations or selection processes based on academic credentials. • The initial framing of questions requiring science advice were by policymakers, parliament committee or the President and advisory council. • Collation and synthesizing evidence: The methods used included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, through surveys, consultative meetings, expert opinion, foresight tools and workshops and/meetings of the experts where the evidence was reviewed. • The process of communicating science advice included reports issued by the science advisors, or advice directed to the Presidential Office, to Cabinet office, or submitted through Secretary of the Ministry of Science and Technology to the Head of State, or reports to the relevant minister and presidential secretariat. • The impact of science advice on policy was rarely evaluated. • Case Studies for individual countries supplemented the situation analysis for that country. • A SWOT analyses was compiled based on each country responses to reflect the totality of responses and for guidance in drafting a framework for Roadmaps for each country. As part of the project a three-day workshop was held in Colombo, Sri Lanka on 'Institutionalizing Science Advice to Governments' 6-8 July 2023. A descriptive ‘Colombo Declaration’ was released calling on governments to partner with scientists and demonstrate stronger commitment in strengthening action to institutionalize science advice to governments. The concluding session described future actions of developing Roadmaps and Case Studies by each partner country. The contextualized roadmaps will be developed through an iterative process and ‘work in progress’ submitted by most partner agencies were included in the report. The key outcomes of the Project were the following: 1. Documentation of Science Advice Systems in countries with situation analysis, reinforced with case studies and SWOT analyses and a framework for contextualized roadmaps that could form the foundation for further activities with support from the IAP and AASSA. 2. Developed and disseminated the ‘Colombo Declaration’ calling on governments to institutionalize science advice 3. Availability of validated questionnaire and framework (‘Colombo framework’) to replicate similar studies elsewhere. 4. Development of a process for promotion of institutionalization of science advice to governments that could be replicated in other countries or regions. 5. Promoted awareness among public, public administrators and policymakers and younger generation of scientists to be part of this transformative process, particularly to ensure continuity of efforts. 6. Contextualized Roadmaps design process has been initiated that is meant to trigger further discussions.