Science and the polity/third task science

Juan Delgado has raised a few questions in last Friday’s contribution (Researchers & policy actors: who drives whom?) that I would like to follow up on. He asked:
- Why and when does a science topic attract attention from the polity or larger society? and
- What is the nature of the inter-linkage and / or dependency between science and the polity?

The second question to my mind is more easily dealt with. It seems to be an inter-linkage that is much more complex. There are probably nearly as many dependencies for politicians and people within the administration from experts these days than the other way around. I therefore am of the impression that there is not just a one-way dependency.

The first question seems more difficult. There must be myriads of experiences that may be evaluated to answer it. Let me single out just one: With more than 10 million copies sold worldwide the most successful individual scientific study - in the sense of publicity and distribution - to this day is more than thirty years old. It still is the “Limits to Growth” (1972), written by Donella Meadows and commissioned by the Club of Rome. This is old stuff but still a wonderful resource when dealing with problems of scientific impact assessment. Over a period of three years I once worked on the question why this study has been so successful. Among the key factors where the following:
- The study came just at the right time at a height of public attention and openness towards problems from a changing and degrading environment (Stockholm 1972...)
- The book focussed on environmental topics but was commissioned by a group of not only scientists, among them CEOs of well known multinational companies (and that’s what the media picked up on) which from the very beginning made it tricky to neglect the study by putting it into the eco-corner
- It was wonderfully written (meaning that it is easily understood by laypeople) by Donella Meadows and there where easily digestible tables to look at
-It was based on most advanced technology - at time that was computer modelling (!) and the first world models (what would be an equivalent today?)
- It had a clear (although by press reviews as well as peer critique much distorted and to large extents misunderstood!) message. But this mixture of understanding and misunderstanding was a lot more powerful than the much more complex message of the book...

These few points already make it obvious that no single normal group of scientists could strive to manage such an event of publicity. However, there are things that can be done. Global change research in the last say ten years has been particularly strong in these respects when involving experts and stakeholders not just from within but also from outside science. Such transdisciplinary approaches do open for possibilities not just to enlarge the understanding of the problem but also for reaching beyond its peers and academia at large. This development together with a different form of science communication that comes with it to me is one of the keys towards attracting more attention from the polity and society at large.

In this connection let me mention an effort the Swedish Government started some three years ago. Recognising the lack of possibilities and incentives for scientists to fully engage into what tentatively can be described as new forms for scientific activity, i. e. working towards publicly accepted solutions, publicity of results, stakeholder involvement, management of highly complex applied science projects etc. the Swedish Government initiated a discussion on third task science. First task science in this definition would be science and research, as we mostly know it - its main output being knowledge and science publications. Second task was defined as teaching in universities and other science institutes. Third task science was then the solution oriented and policy directed science that among many other tasks works towards fulfilling international declarations and conventions such as the CBD, UNFCCC, Ramsar Convention, Aarhus Convention and others. But also large parts within e.g. technology assessment would fall under this definition. It seems indeed much to ask from scientists to fulfil all three functions without even first recognising and at least tentatively defining all of these functions and tasks that come with them. And it seems high time to think more carefully about systematically supporting such efforts within science, not leaving out careful thought (and action) on new funding structures and economic incentives for (young) scientists who are able and willing to go for a career in third task areas. This, if I may suggest, could be an interesting topic for the EPBRS to take up at Aviemore.