[ad_1]

This article was produced with the support of the International Network for Governmental Science Advice (INGSA).

Making sure scientific advice is objective is one of the key concerns of the International Network for Governmental Science Advice, says its Africa head Mobolanji Oladoyin Odubanjo.

The fifth International Conference on Science Advice to Governments, INGSA2024, takes place in Kigali this week (1-2 May), featuring global leaders in evidence for policy, convening for the first time in the global South.

Mobolanji Oladoyin Odubanjo, chairman of the Africa chapter of the International Network for Science Advice (INGSA) and executive secretary of the Nigerian Academy of Science, spoke to SciDev.Net about evidence-based policymaking and ethical artificial intelligence (AI).

Could you briefly describe the objectives and mission of INGSA?

As a global network of professionals, scientists, and decision-makers, INGSA seeks to advance evidence-based decision-making. Our goal is to close the knowledge gap between science and policy by ensuring that policy decisions are informed by scientific research and that societal issues are addressed.

What advances have INGSA brought about in Africa and what are the challenges?

Science can, in fact, change the course of Africa. Although we’ve come a long way in supporting evidence-based decision-making, much more needs to be done. Making sure scientific advice is objective is one of the main concerns. Science is about rigorous testing and validation of evidence, not about personal ideas or biases.

How can the advice provided by scientists be impartial, particularly when it comes to contentious and complicated topics like pandemics?

The key resides at the heart of science: the scientific process. The beauty of science is that it is founded on processes that are well-defined and reproducible. This means that if I conduct a scientific experiment here, you can replicate it elsewhere in the world and hopefully receive the same findings. Sure, there may be slight variation based on the circumstances, but the principle stays the same. Scientists can compare findings and identify potential errors or biases.

Scientific findings are subjected to a rigorous review procedure. Papers go through a peer-review procedure where other experts in the field examine the findings and identify any flaws. This reduces the impact of biases.

Also, transparency is just as crucial. COVID-19, for example, had numerous unknowns. Scientists must be honest about what they do not know. Sometimes total certainty isn’t possible. Scientists should disclose their knowledge limitations and provide the best estimates based on existing information. They should also clearly communicate the necessity for further research. Admitting these uncertainties does not harm scientific advice; rather, it increases it by instilling trust and public confidence.

How can INGSA play a role in protecting science and building public confidence in scientific advice?

Building trust in science is a big part of what INGSA does. We do this by improving the capacity of policymakers and scientists. INGSA teaches scientists how to explain their research to non-experts. This involves avoiding technical jargon and communicating clearly. INGSA stresses good research methodology and also trains policymakers to understand and use scientific advice.

How can scientists and policymakers develop their science communication skills, so that the science is communicated without ambiguity?

To get scientific results to policymakers in a way that they can use, we need to put clear and simple communication first. This means not using technical language and making sure that a lot of people can understand the information.

When talking to policymakers, it is important to use simple language and give explanations for technical terms that may be used. Scientist must also remember to adjust their language when speaking to an audience with diverse backgrounds.

In the end, the goal is to make sure that policymakers fully understand how important the scientific results are and how they affect policy choices. After all, policymakers are not likely to act on information they do not understand.

How can policymakers be better equipped to understand and utilise scientific advice?

Policymakers need training in a few areas. First, they need to be able to evaluate information effectively. This includes understanding how to find reliable scientific information, assess its quality, and determine how it can be used in different stages of the policymaking process. Training should also cover how to integrate scientific evidence seamlessly into policy decisions.

How can traditional science organisations, such as universities and research labs, collaborate with emerging data sources, such as citizen science programmes and big data analytics?

Citizen scientists and online sources can provide new ideas and information to regions that regular research may miss. However, there is also a chance of incorrect information being mixed in. Consider someone knowingly or unintentionally disseminating incorrect information. We need a way to filter through everything and ensure that what we’re using is reliable.

The good news is that non-scientists provide valuable information. They might notice things professionals overlook and that can be a great starting point for further research. The key is to take those citizen science findings and put them through the proper scientific verification methods.

As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes more powerful, how can scientists and politicians collaborate to ensure that it is used responsibly across multiple fields?

There is no simple solution, but one thing is certain: everyone in the scientific community is paying attention to AI. It’s a powerful tool with huge potentials, but we must be cautious about how we use it. AI will have an impact on a variety of disciplines, so we need a framework to oversee its development and use. Scientists and policymakers must collaborate to figure out how to make AI a force for good, so that it used responsibly and sensibly across board.