Science in Parliament: How Scientists Support Political Debates

At the Science Communication Forum 2024 at Urania Berlin, 42 participants from the entire spectrum of German science communication came together to discuss the topic “Science in Parliament: How scientists support political debates” in a World Café session. The event picked up on the main theme of this year's forum, “Science communication for a strong democracy and open society”.

The World Café was organized by Paulina Conrad from the German Marine Research Alliance, Meike Lohkamp, Science-Policy-Fellow at the Research Institute for Sustainability RIFS, Hai Ha Tran from the German Research Foundation as well as Katharina Sielemann and Marie Heidenreich from Helmholtz SynCom (see list of participating institutions below).

Impulse: From Evidence to Decision

Marie Heidenreich's impulse made it clear that, despite their different working logics, science and politics are dependent on each other in order to tackle complex global challenges such as the climate crisis and implement effective environmental policy. However, many of the existing systems for science-based policy advice are incomplete or are not used systematically enough. According to Heidenreich's observations from parliamentary formats, the political and scientific systems follow different logics: politicians often want clear recommendations for action that can be implemented in the short term, especially during acute crises, while researchers tend to outline various options for action, make uncertainties transparent and remain aware of their scientific limitations.

The close exchange between politics and science can help to clarify the specific information needs of politics at an early stage, form transdisciplinary research teams, translate scientific findings into clear, target group-oriented key messages and offer targeted dialogue events. Cooperation between several research institutions strengthens scientific credibility and improves the transfer of research findings into concrete political decisions.

If this interaction is implemented well, science can not only identify politically relevant options, but also provide evidence-based impulses for long-term environmental and climate protection strategies. This creates a continuous, trust-based exchange in which both sides receive the information they need to jointly develop effective solutions.

The participants discussed the specified questions relating to science policy dialogs at four themed tables. After around twelve minutes of discussion, the participants moved to the next table; at the end, all the results were summarized.

Table A: Which Science Policy Formats Can Effectively Support and Complement the Political Debate?

Host: Meike Lohkamp, RIFS

The participants explored a variety of formats with which science can contribute its expertise to political processes. The formats mentioned included hearings in parliament, parliamentary breakfasts and evenings in the Bundestag and state parliaments, round tables, 1:1 discussions, visits to research institutions and corresponding guided tours for members of parliament, conferences with integrated policy sessions as well as policy briefs and one-pagers. In addition, events specifically for office managers and employees, newsletters for political actors and cooperative approaches between city administrations, academia and civil society (e.g. at festivals) were mentioned.

The participants emphasized that objectives and target groups determine the selection of the appropriate format. More personal meetings such as 1:1 discussions and round tables are suitable for an in-depth exchange of expertise, while larger events often reach more people and promote networking. The importance of follow-up was also emphasized so that contacts are maintained and the discussion does not end after a one-time event.

On the occasion of the session, Meike Lohkamp published the new guide “Parliamentary Events - A Guide for Science Organizations and Communicators”, which she wrote as a Science Policy Fellow at the Research Institute for Sustainability RIFS:

https://publications.rifs-potsdam.de/rest/items/item_6003769_2/component/file_6003856/content

The guide provides practical advice on format selection, legal framework conditions, invitation management and evaluation methods. Several participants particularly praised the structured tips on patronage, scheduling and feedback mechanisms.

Table B: How Can the Scientific Quality of the Science-Policy Dialog Be Ensured, and How Can We Prepare Scientists for the Dialog With Policymakers?

Host: Paulina Conrad, DAM

At this thematic table, the focus was on the fact that researchers often have to meet different expectations when they engage in political discourse. Several participants emphasized that there is not just “politics”, but that political actors act differently at various levels - from local to international politics. It should also be taken into account that ministries and administrations are characterized by hierarchies and responsibilities and that functions can sometimes be influenced by party politics, while the speaker level, for example, can offer an important platform for professional exchange. This is precisely where target group-oriented communication comes in: Researchers should know the roles, motivations and decision-making processes of their addressees in order to convey complex content concisely.

The presentation of options for action turned out to be an area of tension: on the one hand, many members of parliament want concrete, action-oriented options; on the other hand, researchers attach importance to making uncertainties transparent and not making hasty recommendations. Through workshops for early career researchers, communication training, and guidance from professional mediators (science policy brokers), researchers could learn to master this balancing act.

Another point was reflecting on one’s own role: transparency, when speaking as a scientist and when speaking as a private individual, creates credibility. In conclusion, there was agreement that a recursive transfer can occur when new impulses and needs from politics flow back into research and help shape the scientific agenda.

Table C: How Can We Evaluate the Effectiveness of Science Policy Dialogs?

Host: Katharina Sielemann, Helmholtz SynCom

The participants agreed that evaluation should be integrated into the planning of such dialogs at an early stage. It is important to define realistic goals: Scientific interventions are more likely to result in agenda setting or consideration than in an immediate change in the law. Unanticipated effects – such as spontaneous follow-up activities or additional expert discussions – are just as relevant as the response on site and the mood during the event.

The participants also discussed possible methods, ranging from qualitative follow-up surveys and systematic observation (e.g. mention in committee debates) to quantitative indicators such as participant numbers or social media reach. Confidentiality was mentioned several times as a challenging factor: Particularly in bilateral discussions, the influence on political positions is hardly visible to the public. Despite these hurdles, a good evaluation design can provide valuable insights into effectiveness and potential areas for improvement.

Table D: How Do We Reach Political Actors (e.g., Ministries vs. MPs)?

Host: Hai Ha Tran, DFG

The participants observed that different institutions and levels (ministries, state parliaments, federal parliament, local authorities) require different approaches. Ministries often deal with specialist topics on a long-term basis and appreciate detailed information. Members of parliament, on the other hand, often need quickly usable input and short, concise key messages. Constituency-specific approaches or local cooperation can also make access easier.

Networking was highlighted as a key factor for successful dialog: Existing contacts, for example via fellows, committee memberships or patronage, make a significant contribution to invitations being accepted in the first place. At the same time, the discussants saw events in the close distance of parliamentary locations and in convenient time slots as factors promoting a higher participation rate.

As part of a public affairs and science policy strategy, the participants rated the profiling of researchers as publicly visible personalities as particularly worthwhile. Social media channels such as LinkedIn, for example, allow presidents of scientific organizations to comment directly on legislative initiatives and engage with politicians. In this way, science-based arguments can be fed into decision-making processes in an unfiltered manner and interest in specialist expertise can be increased in a targeted manner.

Conclusion and Outlook

In the final round, the participants were impressed by the intensive professional exchange that took place in just 90 minutes. It became clear that target group-specific formats, careful preparation and consistent follow-up are crucial for the success of science policy dialogues. A recurring keyword was the desire for a permanent exchange among science managers who promote the science policy dialog in Germany - for example in a network or forum in which experiences could be shared, new ideas tested and joint strategies developed.

The session ended with a joint summary: science can enrich political processes with well-founded expertise, provided that politics and science engage in an early and ongoing exchange, the formats are well thought out and there is active follow-up of individual events. In this way, an effective dialog between science and politics can succeed - in line with the forum's overarching theme of “Science communication for a strong democracy and open society”.

Participating Institutions

• acatech/Energiesysteme der Zukunft (ESYS)
• Alfred Toepfer Stiftung F.V.S.
• Bundesamt für Seeschifffahrt und Hydrographie
• ConflictA, Universität Bielefeld
• Deutsches Primatenzentrum (DPZ)
• DLR Projektträger
• DLR-PT Kompetenzzentrum Wissenschaftskommunikation
• DUZ Verlags- und Medienhaus GmbH
• Forschungsinstitut Gesellschaftlicher Zusammenhalt am SOCIUM
• Forscherstation gGmbH
• GEOMAR Helmholtz-Zentrum für Ozeanforschung Kiel
• Gesellschaft Deutscher Chemiker e.V.
• Hanse-Wissenschaftskolleg - Institute for Advanced Study (HWK)
• Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf
• Helmholtz Klima
• Hochschule Mittweida
• iDiv – Deutsches Zentrum für integrative Biodiversitätsforschung
• Institut für Friedensforschung und Sicherheitspolitik (IFSH)
• Katholische Universität Eichstätt-Ingolstadt (KU)
• Klaus Tschira Stiftung gGmbH
• Leibniz-Gemeinschaft
• Leopoldina
• Max-Planck-Gesellschaft
• Museum für Naturkunde Berlin
• Nationales Institut für Wissenschaftskommunikation (NaWik) gGmbH
• ProLOEWE
• RIFS Potsdam - Research Institute for Sustainability
• RHET AI Center, Universität Tübingen
• Rhein-Main-Universitäten
• sDiv – das Synthesezentrum am iDiv
• Stifterverband
• SynCom Helmholtz Erde und Umwelt
• Technische Universität Dresden
• Universität Duisburg-Essen
• Universität Kassel
• Universität Konstanz, EXC The Politics of Inequality
• Universität Münster
• VolkswagenStiftung
• Weizenbaum-Institut
• Wissenschaft im Dialog gGmbH
• Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB)
• WissensWorte
• Zentrum für Marine Umweltwissenschaften (MARUM)
• Zeitverlag