Professional Development Policy Workshop for Chemical Scientists

On Friday I went to a workshop organised by the Centre for Science and Policy (CSaP) and sponsored and hosted by the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC). The purpose of the workshop was to

" Bring together policy makers and researchers in the early stage of their careers to engage in discussion and debate and think longer term about career paths and goals. "

and I definitely think it did what it was supposed to!

The day was broken down into three sessions: two panel discussion and an activity.

Before the discussion sessions began, we had an introductory presentation from James Hutchinson of the RSC which gave us some background information about how the policy process works and at what stages chemists may be involved. We were also given a copy of the RSC Science Policy Writing course which looks amazingly helpful - I'll definitely be reading it more thoroughly soon.

The first panel discussion featured three scientists who all had experience of working with the government. Dr. David Taylor began by introducing the role of policy advisor: someone who gives advice, not just evidence. He drew on his experience to put together a list of 'must-haves' for a potential policy advisor:

• Technical and Political expertise. This enables an accurate diagnosis of the fundamentals and an evaluation of the available options. Be aware that policy advice is neutral but that its recipients rarely are!
• The ability to contextualise. You need to be able to see the issue through your client's eyes. 
• Procedural knowledge. You need to understand the way the systems that you are trying to influence actually work! This may involve persuading middle managers rather than the boardroom.  
• Self Awareness and Communication. Remember to talk to people in their language, but make sure you stay within your area of expertise. 

He finished by reminding us that policy makers are often very busy, and so the ability to keep the message short and understandable is key. 

Selvarani Elahi then took told us about her work at LGC, which was the government laboratory before privatisation. I was interested in her work, as my great-grandfather was a government analyst in India many years ago! she stressed the need for non-contamination within their labs, as their results are taken as the last word and so can end up determining the result of criminal law trials. 

Dr. Leila Luheshi was the last to speak in the first session, and gave us some tips as to how to get into working in science policy. We were encouraged to be as politically aware as possible, so we can understand the environment in which decisions are being made and also reminded that all decisions are resource-based, and that there is only a fixed amount of money!

After breaking for lunch, we were split into 4 groups and given a scenario: we were a group of policy advisers preparing to give advice to DEFRA on a European Commission vote. We had to come up with a recommendation, after considering both the reasons for and against the decision, and the unintended consequences. The topic was insecticides: new to all of us! It was a very interesting activity, as the recommendation was not clear and involved a lot of discussion within the group. I was then nominated as group spokesperson, and had to give a 3 minute feedback to the 'minister' (the second panel). This was surprisingly difficult, and I ran over time, although I managed to make our recommendation clear, which was the important bit!

Once all the groups had presented, the panel gave us some feedback which I have summarised below:

• Begin with a brief summary of the problem.
• Move on to the recommendation, then follow up with the reasons why you came to that conclusion.
• What is the effect on the UK?
• Give a timescale to the different options.
• Will there be media interest?

The third and final session introduced another panel, this time made up of policy makers who were able to give us an insight into the process from the other side. Dr. Duncan Harding from the Home Office was keen to let us know how our chemistry backgrounds could help us in an advisory role. It was also interesting to hear how the evidence base for a policy is continually under review, and how crucial it is to stay ahead of developments, as data collection can take a long time. 

Elizabeth Surkovic from the Government Office for science (@GOScience) warned us that we must be prepared to expose ourselves to the unknown, but that this should not put us off. She reminded us that all the speakers had "Felt the fear and done it anyway". 

Dr. Colin Church from DEFRA stressed the importance of taking evidence from a number of sources, whilst checking the context from which the results have come, as all evidence has been collected for a reason and it is worth noting the motivation for the research. As part of the feedback from the previous session, where we had been quite indecisive, he reminded us that in policy making you are not allowed to not make a decision! 

As well as hearing from all of the panellists, each session finished with discussions which were a great opportunity to ask any questions that we had. These sessions, along with the other networking sessions meant that we all had an opportunity to not only meet other young researchers, but also to quiz the panellists on any individual issues we might have. 

The combination of the panel discussions, the activity and the opportunities for networking made this day enormously useful - Thanks very much to organisers. I also picked up some good reading material for the train in "Future Directions For Scientific Advice in Whitehall", edited by Robert Doubleday and James Wilsdon. This book contains a collection of essays on science policy and is a really good read!