Goodbye Expert-Based Policy Advice? Challenges in Advising Governmental Institutions in Times of Transformation

The global transformation towards sustainability has not only increased the demand for anticipatory and reflexive knowledge to support decision making, but also raises three challenges common to all forms of scientific policy advice: to appropriately consider societal norms and values (challenge of normativity), to integrate different forms of knowledge (challenge of integration) and to organize the participation of stakeholders (challenge of participation). While new forms of scientific policy advice in the field of sustainability research (SR) have emerged in response, the role of established actors such as the Office of Technology Assessment at the German Bundestag (TAB) is increasingly scrutinized. One of the fundamental characteristics of TAB’s model of scientific policy advice is a rigid boundary arrangement between politics and science that places a high value on the objectivity and authority of scientific knowledge. Based on a content analysis of digitalization-related TAB reports spanning three decades, we describe how a rather technocratic institution such as TAB has dealt with the challenges of normativity, integration, and participation, and we compare its approach with that of SR institutions. TAB has partly adapted its working mode to the new challenges, e.g., by trying out new methods to foster a stronger dialogue with stakeholders. However, TAB’s response to the challenges distinctly differs from the forms of transformative research conducted in the SR community. We argue that this is not only a necessary precondition to maintain its reputation as a trustworthy actor towards the Parliament but gives TAB and similar expert-based institutions a special role in the governance of societal transformation.

What Does Good Science-Based Advice to Politics Look Like?

I address options for providing scientific policy advice and explore the relation between scientific knowledge and political, economic and moral values. I argue that such nonepistemic values are essential for establishing the significance of questions and the relevance of evidence, while, on the other hand, such social choices are the prerogative of society. This tension can be resolved by recognizing social values and identifying them as separate premises or as commissions while withholding commitment to them, and by elaborating a plurality of policy packages that envisage the implementation of different social goals. There are limits to upholding the value-free ideal in scientific research. But by following the mentioned strategy, science can give useful policy advice by leaving the value-free ideal largely intact. Such scientific restraint avoids the risk of appearing to illegitimately impose values on the public and could make the advice given more trustworthy.

Aesthetic Expertise for Sustainable Development: Envisioning Artful Scientific Policy Advice

Unsustainable developments will continue to be a significant challenge from the global to local level. The United Nations Transformation Agenda 2030 reflects the breadth and depth of the task and serves as a central reference point. The participation and collaboration of state and non-state actors are considered necessary to make progress in this context. However, politics and policy-making play a central role for guiding and shaping sustainable development. In order to secure societal acceptance for the targeted sustainability transformation, this article claims that policy-making for sustainable development should aim to bring about well-being-oriented transformations. In this regard, besides cognitive insight into the need for change, the multisensory dimensions of human existence in general as well as in everyday social practices in particular should be taken into account more systematically. It is argued that the presented approach of artful scientific policy advice may enable sensory-informed and creative policy-making by providing aesthetic expertise.

Nonpartisan advice for the U.S. Congress matters

As in all democratically constituted sta- tes, scientific policy advice to the legis- lature in the U. S. is faced with the challenges of this time: What can good advice look like given the rapidly developing new technologies and their far-reaching implications for society? Despite decades of collaboration between consultants and advisors, mutual trust must be won over and over again. Against this background, it is particularly interesting to take a closer look at current developments in the U. S.: Timothy M. Persons, GAO’s Chief Scientist, gives insights into the work of the U. S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), which advises the U. S. Congress. It becomes clear that balanced results of technology assessment and other GAO products arise when not only the majority but also the minority party is heard when prioritizing congressional inquiries. The research questions must be impartial and meet congressional requirements. The interview was conducted by Constanze Scherz (ITASKIT).

How do think tanks qualify their expertise? Exploring the field of scientific policy advice in France

This study explores the field of scientific policy advice in environmental and energy policies in France to gain insights into the role of think tanks. The field evolved along with the growth of think tanks. The think tanks refer to several orders of worth and combine them in their communication in order to qualify their expertise. The results of the study reveal that the think tanks have become more independent actors and that the field of scientific policy advice has gained autonomy. Both aspects indicate that the relationship between politics and expertise has gradually changed in France.

‘Operator, please’ — Connecting truth and power at the science-policy interface

Today, science and politics are in a complex status of reciprocal dependency. Politics is dependent on scientific expertise in order to adequately address highly complex social problems, and science is fundamentally dependent on public funding and on political regulation. Taken together, the diverse interactions, interrelations and interdependencies of science and politics create a heterogenous and complex patchwork — namely, the science-policy interface. The societal relevance for phenomena such as scientific policy advice, science governance or (politically fostered) science communication have been amplified by the developments of digitalisation and now call for new approaches to clarify the ambiguous relationships within the science-policy interface. This special issue aims to provide a platform for researchers to address communication at the intersection of science and politics from different angles. The research presented in the special issue, thus, aims to reduce the contingency of science-policy communication in its various dimensions and looks to spur further investigations into the science-policy interface.

The Changing Relationships between Research, Society, and Policy in the Netherlands

The WRR, The Dutch Scientific Council for Government Policy, has been a key advisory body in the field of migration and integration since the late 1970s. The heated reception of its 2007 report Identification with the Netherlands—rechristened the Máxima report after a speech by the then Crown Princess—marked an important turning point. Analysis of its reception shows that scientifically informed policy advice must increasingly address two developments: the growing significance of public opinion and the changing relationship between science, policy, and politics. To continue to fulfil its role as honest broker, scientific policy advice must be aware of the breadth of academic and other stakeholder opinion and of deeper public worries and emotions, without being captured by the ‘public majority’. This is necessary in an age when reaching out to the publics—often via media—appears as the most effective route to making an impact on politicians and policy-making.

Role concepts of technology assessment between postulates of neutrality and the demand for creating impact

Technology assessment (TA) has been evolving as a research-based and anticipatory field of scientific policy-advice for more than fifty years. Its position at the interface between science and policy-making has caused several debates on its adequate roles. Proposals reach from the position of a neutral and distant observer of ongoing developments up to taking an active role in transformation processes fueled by the technological advance, e.g. in favor of sustainable development. In this paper, several role concepts of TA will be discussed against the background of a new framework concept on technology assessment. It will be shown, that TA usually has to take the role of an Honest Broker in assessing new technologies as an umbrella role concept. The specific manifestations of this umbrella role, however, can vary from context to context. The role concept of the Honest Broker serves as an orientation to determine the more specific roles in the tension between assumed neutrality and the obligation to create impact.