SCIENCE-POLICY INTERFACE (SPI)

Introduction

Research should never exist in a bubble; it is about creating something useful and or informing policy. The term SPI has been in use for over 50 years (Kohler 2022), it should be a place or space or interaction between scientists and policy makers share ideas, enrich the debate and inform decisions which affect a population. The majority of the readers of this blog are scientists, so what does this mean to us?  Think about how your research might be used. How a grant application you are writing might apply to others.

As scientists it would seem like it would be science which should linearly drive policy, also referred to as an ‘evidence based narrative’. An example of which could be using an assessment of fish-stocks should drive catch-quotas (United-Nations). In reality, the breath of complexities and other factors leads to the theory of “co production” of policy (van den Hove 2007, Maas, Pauwelussen et al. 2022).

How does this work? (or not)

I have been lucky enough in my roles to be part of the SPI a few times in my career: 1. Running a COVID response team for part of the UK Government, 2. Being a boarding / enforcement officer of the Marine Management Organization (MMO). 3. Being a food safety manager in food factories. In two of the three roles, I was a policy writer and communicator, with a scientific background, and in all of these there were challenges and objectives which at times were at odds.

When conducting COVID work I worked jointly with medical professionals and environmental health officers to define policy, but it was key to understand the science underpinning it, in order to communicate it effectively. Describing to non-scientist audience what an R-number is, why it matters and controlling interactions between teams / bubbles to limit virus spreading. The understanding of virus activity and incubation periods defined length of quarantines at first. Though later in the pandemic, with greater demand on our limited quarantine facilities and greater push from Government to enable workers these quarantine periods were significantly reduced (with other mitigating factors put into place). This was not driven by the science, but at the SPI there were larger pressures which ‘overrode’ the incubation period ‘argument’ which set previous policy.

As previously mentioned, the key to maintain fish/ marine life in our oceans are catch quotas, which are ideally based on regularly updated surveys of fish stocks. As a boarding officer with the MMO I had no power to set these, only to survey what was being caught on boats, if it was within quota and levy fines as a deterrent to poor practice. This control measure was a key part of the SPI, not for setting it, but part of the larger measures which maintained the balance in the system. As with the COVID example, it was key to good enforcement to understand the underpinning scientific and economic arguments for the quotas and fishing practices. It was a great experience to work at the ‘front line’ of the SPI, to see how decisions made at an EU level affect a fisherman at the forefront of putting food on our plates.

Finally, my work as a food safety & regulatory manager in food factories, this work by its nature is interdisciplinary and an incredibly broad area; which is what keeps it exciting! One example from this work was Listeria monitoring. A known threat in the type of facility I was helping to manage, the prevalence is reported in both scientific papers and EU-wide safety reports. This allowed me to set the policy I thought was relevant to the facility I worked in, to determine what is an appropriate monitoring protocol (where to swab, how often to swab, what our reporting limits should be), before conducting the analysis and adjusting that based on the results. This Listeria monitoring policy I created, based on the science, followed the requirements for a good quality SPI set out by Kohler (2022): “credibility, relevance, legitimacy, transparency, iterativity, and inclusiveness”.

How can we help? What should we be doing?

A key component across all of these roles, is I never sought out the SPI. But I am a scientist, and I found myself at the SPI. As a researcher, you too should think about the work you do; this is not just a dissolution to understand a rapid chemotherapeutic delivery, it is part of a research portfolio. We should ask how that portfolio fits into the bigger picture, what policy will your research influence? Put your research in context, be aware of the overlays and how you will make your points in order to positively affect the world around you. All whilst we do what we can to conduct ‘good science’, and if you have questions about that, read our blogpost about it (Mihr 2023).

by Edward Mihr 

References

• Kohler, P. (2022). "Science-Policy Interfaces: From Warnings to Solutions." Retrieved 19 Feb, 2025, from https://www.iisd.org/system/files/2022-01/still-one-earth-science-policy-interface.pdf.

• Maas, T. Y., et al. (2022). "Co-producing the science–policy interface: towards common but differentiated responsibilities." Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 9(1): 93.           

• Mihr, E. (2023). "What makes good science?"  https://www.lamproulab.com/post/what-makes-good-science 2025.           

• United-Nations. "UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD)." Retrieved 25 Mar, 2025, from https://www.unccd.int/science/overview.           

• van den Hove, S. (2007). "A rationale for science–policy interfaces." Futures 39(7): 807-826.