Showcasing the Guidelines with Examples

Science-policy engagement can encompass various types of activities, which are explained below using examples.

Science-based policy advice

Activities in which researchers, based on their expertise, advise policymakers on policy positions and decisions in all stages of the policy cycle. Unlike other forms of policy advice, it is characterized by adhering to good scientific practice, being non-partisan, independent, and placing particular emphasis on methodological rigor.

Science-based policy advice can occur in different formats and forms. Examples:

1. An ETH professor, serving as an expert, leads a scientific advisory committee on the Corona pandemic mandated by the federal government, providing science-based advice to the federal and cantonal authorities on policy decisions regarding pandemic control.
2. An ETH researcher conducts a research project on noise and road traffic in Swiss cities on behalf of the Federal Roads Office. The results of this project may contribute to the formulation of new policies in this area.
3. An ETH researcher contributes as an author to a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
4. An ETH professor is asked for her assessment of the security situation in a specific region during a phone call from a member of the Swiss Parliament's foreign affairs committee.

Public engagement on policy issues

Activities in which researchers express their views on specific policy issues at public events, in the media, or on social media. Examples:

1. An ETH professor gives an interview about the latest developments in photovoltaics and renewable energies in the context of political measures to promote renewable energies. She contextualizes the journalist's questions and provides an overview of the latest findings and knowledge gaps in research.
2. An ETH researcher in the field of energy advocates for a specific public initiative to promote renewable energies through social media posts, referring to studies she has co-authored.
3. An ETH professor, researching in the field of artificial intelligence, is invited by a business association to speak at one of their events about his field of research and to discuss potential regulatory aspects of artificial intelligence.

Engagement or membership as scientific experts in political or advocacy organizations

Activities as a scientific expert in political organizations or interest groups. Examples:

1. An ETH professor from the field of microbiology is a member of the scientific advisory board of an association that has launched a public initiative aiming to more strictly regulate the use of antibiotics.
2. An ETH researcher who studies biodiversity is involved with an international environmental NGO.

Science and policymaking play different roles in society. Policymaking must consider not only scientific evidence and information but also necessarily other aspects, especially societal values and interests. Scientific findings alone never directly lead to political directives. Examples:

1. Science can investigate whether an opt-out system for organ donation increases the number of potential organ donations. Furthermore, science can study the effects of such a solution on the treatment of patients who rely on a donor organ. However, whether such a solution should be implemented and how it should be concretely designed is not a scientific question, but a political one. In a democracy, this is negotiated and decided by the people and the elected decision-makers. Ethical questions and personal values play an important role in this process.
2. The understanding that climate change can only be limited if greenhouse gas emissions are reduced to net-zero is scientifically based. However, the decision about the measures to be taken to achieve net-zero emissions, for example, regarding the promotion of certain technologies or the taxation of fossil fuels, is a political question. This is because such decisions involve economic and financial considerations, as well as notions of justice and questions of political feasibility. Science can continue to investigate which measures are suitable for contributing to the achievement of net-zero, as well as the pros and cons of individual measures (measured against various indicators). However, how these pros and cons should be weighted and which measures should be effectively implemented cannot be answered purely scientifically.

In Switzerland, scientific expertise often finds its way into the policymaking process through different routes and channels. Examples:

• Federal Administration and its specialized offices
• Contract research for the Federal Administration (German: “Ressortforschung”)
• Universities through the education of future policymakers
• Mandated national tasks (e.g., ETH Zurich: Swiss Seismological Service, Center for Security Studies, etc.)
• Task forces and working groups (e.g., on Covid-19)
• Parliamentary hearings
• Organizations at the intersection of science and politics/policy (associations, think tanks, etc.)
• Evaluations of public policy
• Bottom-up initiatives by various actors in research and the public administration.
• Informal policy-advice based on personal networks

The guidelines emphasize that trust and mutual understanding between policymakers and scientists are key for science-based policy advice. Moreover, they highlight that science-based policy advice typically requires interdisciplinary perspectives. Examples:

1. An employee of a federal office needs to respond to a procedural request from parliament concerning individual climate policy measures. She calls an ETH researcher whom she knows well and whose assessment she trusts, asking him for his assessment.
   
2. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the question arose whether and for how long schools should be closed to counteract the virus's transmission. At the request of the Federal Department of Home Affairs, the Swiss National Covid-19 Science Task Force provided interdisciplinary assessments of the positive and negative impacts of various measures. These assessments took into account not only the transmission pathways of the virus but also factors such as impairment of learning progress, social development, and mental health, which required the inclusion of various scientific disciplines.

Contacts and mutual trust through regular exchange are an important foundation for science-based policy advice. ETH Zurich members who wish to engage in science-based policy advice are therefore encouraged to enter into regular contact with policymakers even before this engagement.

The Science-Policy Interface of ETH Zurich supports ETH members by offering various services and activities to help them reach out and collaborate with policymakers.

In science-policy engagement, certain risks need to be considered. Particularly important are potential reputational risks for ETH Zurich as well as the risk of political instrumentalization of research results, which can be the case when collaborating with partisan political actors. Instrumentalization becomes problematic when scientific findings are abbreviated or presented one-sidedly to support a political argument. Example:

1. Example of political instrumentalization: A political association takes an already published ETH study and uses the numbers from a scenario discussed in the study to advocate for its own positions. In doing so, they repeatedly refer to the ETH study. In doing so, they repeatedly refer to the ETH study without contextualizing the results. Other scenarios that are less suited to the argument are not mentioned.

The following measures can be taken to minimize reputation risks as well as the risk of political instrumentalisation:

• Separate research perspective from opinions: In public appearances, interviews, and similar situations, it can be helpful to verbally distinguish clearly between personal opinions and the perspective of ETH Zurich as an institution, as well as between expressions of personal viewpoints and statements that reflect the research perspective.
• Consider timing and political context: The risk of political instrumentalisation of studies and public appearances is higher in Switzerland during the period before a popular vote, especially in the last approximately four to six weeks before the vote. In this phase, it is advisable to be more cautious with statements on topics related to the vote.
• Pay attention to the framing of research projects: For research projects commissioned by policymakers, it should be ensured that the potential research results are not pre-empted by too narrow a framing of the research question as dictated by the client.
• Collaboration with partisan actors: Caution is generally advised when collaborating with politically clearly positioned partisan actors. In case of doubt, the Science-Policy Interface should be consulted.
• Communication: For research projects, the handling of communication related to the study and its results should be determined at the beginning. Especially with partisan actors, insisting on joint communication is recommended.
• Contextualize results: Researchers are free to make public statements about study results that are being instrumentalized, in order to contextualize the results.

The Corporate Communications office of ETH Zurich supports and advises researchers on all communication activities towards the public and the media, as well as general questions regarding the reputation of ETH Zurich. In addition to offering advice, Corporate Communications also provides courses on the topic of science communication (see: Communication Academy).

The Science-Policy Interface of ETH Zurich supports ETH researchers in assessing potential risks associated with collaboration with policymakers and political actors.