Thread by @draccoops, In response to @NObermeister ever-useful tweets prompting constructive debates in #sciadvice, here's [...]

In response to @NObermeister ever-useful tweets prompting constructive debates in #sciadvice, here's my (provocative??) response to this:
1/13

11 reasons why Lawton (2007) is wrong:

1. Scientists are, in part to blame: disciplinarity sections off physical from social science, diminishing the impact of both. Post-normal science and interdisciplinarity address this ( @ArthurCPetersen)

2/13

2. There is actually a disappearingly *small* amount of science, relative to what *could* be there, and what is there, related to 1, is often irrelevant: wrong topic, wrong question, wrong time, wrong place, wrong hypothesis. Co-production and transdisciplinarity help here.

3/13

3. Science is often pretty clear, but then it is also indeterminate: detecting e.g. a high incidence rate tells you nothing about what to do. Translating from causal explanation in policy relies on soc sci (nec but not suff) which is philosophically in contest w/ phys sci

4/13

4. Whether there is public support on option X is a hypothesis that soc sci can help test. Often public supports radical change if done right ( @NickPidgeon1) and lifestyles are for the most not cherished.

5/13

5. This is just normal practice and not a reason science advice fails to impact effectively. Science can play as much a role as any of these, and indeed can be stronger. But key is to make it fit epistemically and ontologically into legal/political space.

6/13

6. Timescales are always mismatched but this hides the fact that scientists are asking the 'wrong’ questions. Sci can generate policy issues (climate change) as well as respond to them (COVID), but collecting the right data in right way is central (Cooper 2018)

7/13

7. Ministers (not politicians - there is a difference) are not 'caught' btwn sci + industry interest: they *have* to balance them. If 'caught’ it is because there is no transdisciplinary skills to integrate diff knowledge as pt 5 above suggests. Sci can help negotiate here.

8/13

8. It's easy to call out institutional failure: various approaches have been tried in the past to no more success than now. Indicates deeper underlying issues w/ skills & processes & perspectives, including dominant micro-econ approach to policy appraisal. Cost-benefit 2.0?

9/13

9. This isn't a reason why science has no impact on policy but suggest a failure of sci to be deployed effectively, in part due to the well-understood Euro/US-centrism of most science (aka academic publishing). Respecting & dev local sci capacity essential to progress.

10/13

10. If sci 'flies in the face' then it has singularly failed to understand the lived experience of millions who have supported a govt narrative that enabled election. Their expressed reasons may be ‘false' in some sense, but good soc sci can unpack this ( @PDevinewright)

11/13

11. Corruption is not per se a block on science impact - its a block on anyone’s impact. The trick is often to understand timing and framing as well as the logic of policy design. In part, one person's ‘corruption’ is another person's ‘redistribution’.

12/13

Key thing *not* mentioned here is the potent but poorly understood #engineeringadvice which is my focus.

Call outs to Nick, Patrick, Arthur ref some key work in this area from energy/env policy, but lots not ref’d...

@UCLSTEaPP

13/13

Latest Threads Unrolled: