An article commenting on the science/ policy divide that interviews only scientists is a good illustration of why this divide exists in the first place

This doesn't explain how policy is made & the advice is limited on how to better understand policy. 1/ https://www.the-scientist.com/careers/science-and-policy-collide-during-the-pandemic-67882

How is policy created? Only a small no. of academics understand. Yet most academic articles end with a few lines about, "Policy must do X, Y, Z"

How are policy decisions being made under COVID-19? Swiftly, by analysts & applied researchers, many working long hours & shift work

Policy makers can only draw on what is openly available. Anything behind a paywall won't be used. Policymakers don't know who the best researchers are unless they reach out - and few do. Sharing science on social media is great for public education, but seldom reaches policy.

Ministers don't do the bulk of policy work. It's applied researchers, whom the academy largely ignores and often disdain. Academia doesn't engage with our work, which *IS* public & not behind a paywall.

Academics who truly want to impact policy could be building stronger relationships with applied researchers

Connect with policy teams (our websites are public)
Read our work
Write plain language versions of your research
Create a public summary if your work is paywalled

Understand the purpose & context of policy management. Policy needs to be able to take action and measure impact. Education is not enough for behavioural change. Translating research into practice is an entire field because research often does not work in the real world.

What happens in a lab or study often can't be replicated in communities, which are complex & dynamic. Replication crisis means studies are rarely replicated. Behavioural interventions often don't scale to broader populations. Academics don't live with this; applied researchers do

Policy work is multidisciplinary. Policy makers can't know all the experts everywhere. It seems science publications imagine that applied researchers will find their niche study, when reality is that policy makers need to read broadly, including unfamiliar disciplines.

COVID-19 is a good example. This article quotes public health researchers, biologists, medical scientists (who are all great), but the reality is that COVID-19 policy context is 24/ 7, changing all the time, and drawing on many disciplines, of which biological sciences is only 1

Need to switch behaviour on masks? Want people to use your vaccine? Do you expect people to keep getting re-tested? These answers have medical, behavioural and social components

Policy would be more effective if more academics reached beyond the academic/ applied divide.