Future directions for scientific advice in Whitehall

Scientific advice has never been in greater demand; nor has it been more contested. From climate change to cyber-security, poverty to pandemics, food technologies to fracking, the questions being asked of scientists, engineers, social scientists and other experts by policymakers, the media and the public continue to multiply. At the same time, in the wake of the financial crisis and controversies such as ‘Climategate’, the authority and legitimacy of those same experts is under greater scrutiny. To mark the transition in April 2013 to Sir Mark Walport as the UK’s chief scientific adviser, this collection brings together new essays by more than 20 leading thinkers and practitioners, including Sir John Beddington,Sheila Jasanoff, Geoff Mulgan, Roger Pielke Jr., Jill Rutter, Mike Hulme and Sir Bob Watson. In the context of the UK government agenda for Whitehall reform, and a growing emphasis on the use of evidence in policy, these contributors chart future directions for the politics and practice of scientific advice. This project is a collaborative initiative of five partners: University of Cambridge’s Centre for Science and Policy; Science Policy Research Unit(SPRU) and ESRC STEPS Centre at the University of Sussex; Alliance for Useful Evidence; Institute for Government; and Sciencewise

Sustainability in turbulent times: lessons from the Nexus Network for supporting transdisciplinary research

Since its launch in June 2014, the ESRC Nexus Network has worked to support transdisciplinary research at the food-water-energy-environment nexus, and to create meaningful links between communities of researchers, policymakers, business leaders and practitioners. Through its activities, the Network has shown that social science is vital. The language of the nexus highlights the need for interconnected thinking between natural and social sciences, and between the research community and decision makers. This report summarises and reflects on those activities

Harnessing the Metric Tide: indicators, infrastructures & priorities for UK responsible research assessment

This review was commissioned by the joint UK higher education (HE) funding bodies as part of the Future Research Assessment Programme (FRAP). It revisits the findings of the 2015 review The Metric Tide to take a fresh look at the use of indicators in research management and assessment.  While this review feeds into the larger FRAP process, the authors have taken full advantage of their independence and sought to stimulate informed and robust discussion about the options and opportunities of future REF exercises. The report should be read in that spirit: as an input to ongoing FRAP deliberations, rather than a reflection of their likely or eventual conclusions.  The report is written in three sections. Section 1 plots the development of the responsible research assessment agenda since 2015 with a focus on the impact of The Metric Tide review and progress against its recommendations. Section 2 revisits the potential use of metrics and indicators in any future REF exercise, and proposes an increased uptake of ‘data for good’. Section 3 considers opportunities to further support the roll-out of responsible research assessment policies and practices across the UK HE sector. Appendices include an overview of progress against the recommendations of The Metric Tide and a literature review.  We make ten recommendations targeted at different actors in the UK research system, summarised as:  1: Put principles into practice.  2: Evaluate with the evaluated.  3: Redefine responsible metrics.  4: Revitalise the UK Forum.  5: Avoid all-metric approaches to REF.  6: Reform the REF over two cycles.  7: Simplify the purposes of REF.  8: Enhance environment statements.  9: Use data for good.  10: Rethink university rankings.</p

Harnessing the Metric Tide: indicators, infrastructures & priorities for UK responsible research assessment

This review was commissioned by the joint UK higher education (HE) funding bodies as part of the Future Research Assessment Programme (FRAP). It revisits the findings of the 2015 review The Metric Tide to take a fresh look at the use of indicators in research management and assessment.  While this review feeds into the larger FRAP process, the authors have taken full advantage of their independence and sought to stimulate informed and robust discussion about the options and opportunities of future REF exercises. The report should be read in that spirit: as an input to ongoing FRAP deliberations, rather than a reflection of their likely or eventual conclusions.  The report is written in three sections. Section 1 plots the development of the responsible research assessment agenda since 2015 with a focus on the impact of The Metric Tide review and progress against its recommendations. Section 2 revisits the potential use of metrics and indicators in any future REF exercise, and proposes an increased uptake of ‘data for good’. Section 3 considers opportunities to further support the roll-out of responsible research assessment policies and practices across the UK HE sector. Appendices include an overview of progress against the recommendations of The Metric Tide and a literature review.  We make ten recommendations targeted at different actors in the UK research system, summarised as:  1: Put principles into practice.  2: Evaluate with the evaluated.  3: Redefine responsible metrics.  4: Revitalise the UK Forum.  5: Avoid all-metric approaches to REF.  6: Reform the REF over two cycles.  7: Simplify the purposes of REF.  8: Enhance environment statements.  9: Use data for good.  10: Rethink university rankings.</p