Integrating International Expertise into Domestic Policymaking: Insights from Global Science Advice Systems
Jean-Christophe Mauduit, Kristiann Allen, Vidhi Sharma, Sarah Bebb
In an era marked by increasingly complex global challenges, from climate change and public health crises to technological disruptions, effective policymaking requires access to relevant expertise and the integration of the best available knowledge. At the national level, a well-established science advisory system and robust science-policy interfaces are critical. However, as the best knowledge and expertise available may reside beyond national boundaries, the national science advice ecosystem also needs to have strong international connections.
The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the varying effectiveness of different countries’ science advisory systems in sourcing and integrating international knowledge and expertise. In the UK, a 2022 Parliament report noted that international evidence was not effectively utilized in domestic policymaking during the pandemic. This observation highlights the challenges of ensuring access to international evidence and of clear processes to incorporate it alongside domestic insights into actionable policy measures.
A case study of three countries: pathways of knowledge integration & challenges
Recognizing the importance of understanding how science advice operates in different national contexts, a team of six UCL STEaPP Master’s students conducted an in-depth study to explore how various countries source international experts and integrate knowledge that lies beyond their national ecosystem.
Their case studies of the UK, Argentina, and India were supervised by members of IPPO and the International Network for Government Science Advice (INGSA). The team’s six-month research effort involved a comprehensive literature review and interviews with a dozen experts in the three case study countries. Their findings are detailed in a 60-page report, offering recommendations to civil servants and professionals in science advice and science diplomacy.
A blog summarizing the results can also be found on the IPPO website.
The process involves three key components: international knowledge sources (e.g. multilateral organizations or expert networks), channels for knowledge flow (including reports, meetings, or professional networks), and government touchpoints (e.g. advisory committees or civil servants).
The research highlighted significant variations in how different countries integrate international expertise, with some relying heavily on domestic experts while others actively involve global voices. The political landscape and the particular public policy domain also shape how and where international expertise is sought. One of the major challenges that the study identified is that pathways are not institutionalized, with little to no methodical approach for integrating international evidence into the policymaking process, which may lead to critical evidence being overlooked or inadequately assessed.
Often, there is an overreliance on personal networks within national science advisory systems. While these personal networks can facilitate timely communication, they also create vulnerabilities since the integration of international knowledge often depends on the connections and initiative of individual advisors or civil servants. This can be problematic since another challenge is that the political and geopolitical landscape the science advice system operates in affects the way that civil servants source (or do not source) the best international evidence.
Learning from global examples: the INGSA Kigali roundtable
To broaden the original case studies and further aggregate insights from different parts of the world, the research team organised a roundtable in April 2024 in Kigali, Rwanda. The IPPO-INGSA roundtable brought together 25 experts from more than 15 countries to discuss best practices in integrating international scientific expertise into governmental decision-making. Some of the questions asked were:
- Where is international knowledge and expertise derived from, and what role do international institutions play?
- How can we ensure a diversity of experts and sources are considered, and what are best practices?
- How can potential bias and equity issues, particularly in low-capacity contexts, be overcome?
The discussions highlighted known common challenges, such as communication barriers between scientists and policymakers and issues pertaining to limited science advice capacity. Participants emphasized the importance of engaging public servants more proactively, addressing equity issues in knowledge exchange, and ensuring that international advice is relevant to local contexts.
Key takeaways and recommendations from the roundtable included:
- At the science-policy interface, participants highlighted the need for closer links between the scientific community and policymakers, as well as training to enhance the formulation and delivery of science advice and its absorption by the policy community. Issues ranged from incorporating scholarly citations in policy papers to ensuring that publicly funded research institutions ensure that knowledge transfer remains free from institutional politics and cross-institutional conflicts.
- There is a need to establish robust science advice networks and systems for efficient response in times of crisis as well as institutionalized processes that do not rely on personal relationships of individuals.
- Disparities in global scientific collaboration were highlighted, reflecting North-South funding and research production imbalances and limited access to data. Strengthening South-South cooperation and ensuring open access to data would be essential for achieving more equitable knowledge sharing in the context of Global South countries, as well as more commonly funded North-North and North-South knowledge exchanges.
- The lack of alignment between international scientific advice and local realities is problematic, and better contextualization is needed. For this purpose, local leadership plays a crucial role in adapting recommendations to fit cultural contexts, which helps prevent misalignment that can otherwise undermine the success of policy responses. Knowledge exchange platforms that bring together scientists and policymakers more effectively and at various levels would enhance national and international communication.
- The discussions also highlighted the role of major international institutions, such as technical agencies of the UN, to expand their reliance beyond a limited pool of international experts and actively include capable local experts to enhance the effectiveness and relevance of their initiatives, facilitating the adoption of international advice. Making scientific information and science advice on a range of policy issues openly accessible worldwide would ensure a wider absorption of international knowledge and better-informed policymaking.
Next Steps: Focus on the UK
The next phase of this research will involve a roundtable in London, where UK stakeholders will explore how the insights gained from a range of international science advice systems can be incorporated into the UK’s national science advisory system. This roundtable will also address potential roadblocks in getting international evidence to bear on domestic policymaking and identify factors that may hinder the integration of this evidence.
Key topics to consider in the upcoming UK roundtable include:
- Institutionalization of pathways: How can the UK institutionalize the pathways through which international expertise is integrated into domestic policymaking to reduce reliance on individual networks?
- Quality assurance: What mechanisms can be developed to ensure the quality and completeness of international evidence used in policymaking while protecting against unwanted foreign influence?
- Equity and inclusion: How can the UK ensure that a diverse range of experts and sources are considered, particularly from the Global South, to avoid biases and promote equity in knowledge exchange?
As the UK looks to enhance its science advisory system, learning from international best practices and addressing these critical questions will be essential to ensuring that the best available international knowledge informs domestic policies.
If you are interested in finding out more about this work, please email Jean-Christophe Mauduit.