The worlds of science and policy are wildly different. Policy decisions are broad ranging and must balance the best available evidence with prevailing political pressures. Meanwhile, science is measured, specialist and rigorous. Despite these differences evidence from scientists along with economists, business managers and other experts are needed to inform policy decisions. So when these scientists are asked to give evidence, how are the differences between the science and policy worlds reconciled? The answer is that they are often not. Parliamentary committees dealing with science are often faced with mounds of evidence, little of which is directly relevant to their inquiries. It is not uncommon for parliamentary committee members to complain at having been presented with an entire 15,000 word thesis after requesting 2 pages of written evidence. This presents them with a difficulty, as not only do committees lack the time to deal with such volumes of evidence, but few of the members will have the inclination or the specialist understanding to do so.

Naturally there are a number of scientists who happen to be excellent at delivering evidence in a policy-friendly manner. Because of this, these same experts are often called upon to give evidence again and again. But are they the right people for the job? Not always.

This is not only an issue in parliament. Government departments across the board need scientists to inform their decisions. From food through to defence, science will always have a role to play. In addition to knowing the details, Departments need to understand risk, statistics and the nature of uncertainty and yet there are relatively few people in Parliament or Government who have a scientific background. 16 out of 21 Government Departments now have Chief Scientific Advisors – an acknowledgement of the importance of science for the health, wealth and security of our nation. The Secretary of State, John Denham recently gave a speech proclaiming the need for the Government to “embed scientific evidence and advice in all policy making.” So is a time of better decision-making on the horizon? If it is, then policy makers in Government, Parliament, businesses and charities alike will need to know and understand more about science. It is equally important that more scientists know and understand more of the policy world, as they could be vital in informing future decisions. This includes decisions on the issues that affect scientists for example the RAE, research budgets, ethics and regulation. The time has come to get involved. The time has come to bridge the gap between the science and policy worlds.

Newton’s Apple has started this forum in Nature Network to open up the debate and to ask you – the scientists – how we can better bridge the gap between science and policy. Please give us your comments, thoughts and questions.