With repeated failures to heed warnings from scientists over environmental and health threats, Baroness Natalie Bennett and colleagues argue for major changes to the relationship between science and policy-making.
Article from Responsible Science journal, no.7; advance online publication: 4 November 2024
In the almost 80 years since the end of World War II, the existing body of science has grown exponentially, with a doubling time for scientific research papers published of 14 years.1 Our government institutions, however, have remained almost identical to how they were when the monarch was also Emperor of India. Departments have been created, wound up, or merged in that period, but the fundamental underpinnings of the state – the civil service and their political masters – are the same. So how can those in charge of the clunky, siloed descendants of the Imperial administration cope with more than five doublings in the amount of scientific knowledge over such a short time?
Put simply, they cannot. The COVID-19 pandemic has laid bare the ineffective manner in which governments approach science, with lobbyists for commercial interests frequently able to subvert and distort evidence for their paymasters’ interests and political concerns of the moment taking priority over longer-term policymaking. Officials and ministers are overwhelmed by the amount and complexity of information available to them and, with fewer than one in nine current Labour MPs holding a degree in STEMM,2 are rarely qualified to analyse it rigorously.
Scientific and medical understanding are changing fast; many former ‘certainties’ and models have been debunked or heavily qualified, but ministers and advisers formed their views and approaches under the old frames, with a degree of hubristic certainty that can no longer be justified.
As demonstrated by a recent discovery (published in pre-print) of novel ‘obelisk’ structures of the human microbiome,3 our understanding of our bodies, health, and the world we live in is far from complete. Most ministers or officials, when confronted by a disease issue are highly likely to seek a medicine or vaccine response; changing the environment to improve the health of microbiomes, or even general health, is unlikely to be on their radar. Even though the field of microbiome research is relatively young, it is already acknowledged that many modifiable diet and environmental factors act through the microbiome,4 impacting health and development of metabolic diseases. Research also points to poor health of the microbiome as a mediating factor in health inequality.5 We need modern health policies, capable of dealing with the links between our environment and our health.
As Professor Jim Norton once put it, perhaps generously, “there [is] generally a poor understanding (by ministers) of science and scientific methods”.6 This is exacerbated by the increase in conflicting reports in the scientific literature. Turning again to the pandemic response, during the early phases of which little was known about the SARS-CoV-2 virus, the government handed the reins to the Chief Medical Officer and Chief Scientific Adviser, claiming to defer to ‘the science’. However, just like ‘sovereignty’ before it, those in power hollowed out the definition of science, and eventually seemed to pick whatever current version of science fit best with the politics of the day.7 The response descended into ‘policy-led science’, not science-led policy.
Thus, in recent years, science became little more than a buzzword used under the Conservative government (2010-2024) to shift blame.8 Its corpse is now regularly wheeled out to justify decisions that have been taken almost entirely based on ideological considerations. Previous Labour administrations did not have to contend with such acute science-based crises as the pandemic—though climate change played an important role in the discourse—but the current roster of MPs does not inspire hope as regards a rapprochement between policy and science, under any future government.
Future governments will unfortunately have to deal with more crises, of greater severity, that will require a robust and reliable mechanism for integrating scientific knowledge into policymaking. Though the COVID-19 pandemic has (rightly) dominated the conversation surrounding global health and health services since 2020, the shadow of bacterial antimicrobial resistance (AMR) —with 1.27 million attributable deaths in 2019 alone—looms large.9
This is to say nothing of drug-resistant fungal pathogens, which the World Health Organisation highlighted as an emerging threat in 2022.9 When I raised this topic with the government at the time, the response10 I received highlighted that they were missing the forest for the trees: that a member of the G7 and a leading world economy would take pride in investing only £6m over five years into antifungals shows a disconnect with the scientific zeitgeist, which may well cost lives in the long run.
A critical area to current and future governments are crises at the intersection between human and environmental health. These will require even more nuanced scientific understanding, as well as systems approaches to understanding the often-non-linear contributions of various parameters. While climate change (and its effects on food security and water scarcity) is an obvious such crisis, there are others lurking just over the horizon. I am thinking in particular about what I have come to call ‘the 3Ps’: plastics; pesticides; and pharmaceuticals. We could include a fourth: PFAS, also known as ‘forever chemicals’.11
While fossil fuel pollution and deforestation often dominate headlines, human overuse of these novel entities has led to us exceeding the planetary boundaries. That is to say, the rate at which we are polluting the environment with the 3Ps “is not consistent with staying within the safe operating space for humanity.” 12 Critically linked is the perpetuating culture of incorporating entirely unnecessary additives to products to boost sales. A particularly egregious example is the inclusion of silver in period products claiming anti-odour properties.13 This not only perpetuates damaging stigmas but also subjects users and the environment to an unnecessary driver of AMR.
A new approach
But this trajectory can be changed. The proposals outlined below seek to promote a forward-thinking approach to integrating scientific understanding into policymaking. They are not meant to be comprehensive or final, but rather a starting point for debate.
Incorporating diverse perspectives: Engaging early-career researchers, who bring fresh perspectives unburdened by the status quo, is essential. However, these researchers often face challenges in influencing policy,14 such as the precarity of their (often fixed-term) contracts, ever-shrinking real-terms R&D budgets, and a lack of familiarity with policymaking processes. The latter could be addressed by mandating that UK Doctoral Training Programmes include an aspect of policy training (such as through a Professional Internship for PhD Students (PIPS)-like scheme).
Bridging science and policy: More widely, there is a lack of dedicated government support in translating the findings of the brilliant research community throughout the UK into effective policy. Industrial interests too often interfere with making good science into good policy.
The same approach applies to the 3Ps. Single-use plastics, for example, could be phased out in packaging, with increased R&D funding dedicated to leveraging the UK’s scientific excellence in developing sustainable alternatives. Additionally, I am actively engaging with the government on the issues of pesticides, pharmaceutical, and biocidal pollutants, particularly their role in contributing to antimicrobial resistance.
Modern policymaking: An essential aspect of contemporary policymaking, highlighted by my House of Lords Private Members' Bill on biocide regulation that recently had its first reading, and its accompanying policy brief,15 is the need for evidence-based approaches that are tailored to the specific challenges we face. The type of response required to address cross-sector issues like public health, antimicrobial resistance, and environmental pollution, varies greatly depending on the context. In such complex scenarios involving the interaction between multiple environmental and human health factors—such as the impact of PFAS or the cumulative effects of various pollutants—a more nuanced, systems-based analysis may be required to capture the full scope of potential risks and benefits. In such complex broad ranging scenarios, it becomes crucial to employ the precautionary principle. This approach ensures that even when risk is incalculable or uncertain, where there is the potential for significant harm, protective measures are taken. Given the well documented deterioration of human, animal, and environmental health, we must ensure that crucial action actions are not delayed on the grounds of ‘waiting for evidence’.
Moreover, challenges like the perpetual substitution problem, where harmful substances are replaced with equally problematic alternatives, underscore the difficulty of creating lasting, effective policies. This highlights the importance of integrating diverse sources of evidence, from scientific research to lived experiences, into policymaking processes. It also emphasises the need for adaptive policies that can evolve as new evidence emerges, ensuring that responses are both scientifically sound and practically effective. As we advance, the ability to discern and apply the appropriate type of evidence to each issue will be crucial in developing policies that not only mitigate harm but also foster long-term sustainability and public health.
The isolation of science from wider society, and the resulting handicap in addressing world problems, has been debated for decades,16 with minimal tangible improvement. However, with continued momentum and growing success, prioritising the resolution of these complex scientific challenges—guided by the best available evidence—will remain a central focus.
This article was prepared by Baroness Natalie Bennett, Dr Paul-Enguerrand Fady, and Dr Katy Stokes.
Natalie Bennett is one of two Green Party peers in the British House of Lords, with particular interests in soil, ecosystems, microbiomes and general public health. Her first degree was in agricultural science and she spent 20 years working as a journalist, including five as editor of The Guardian Weekly.
Paul-Enguerrand Fady has several years of experience working in the UK Parliament, advising senior policymakers on science, health, agriculture, environment, innovation, and issues like 'One Health', infectious disease, AMR, and the microbiome.
Katy Stokes is an early career researcher focused on designing AI for low-resource settings to improve health equity, with experience at the science-policy interface in areas like health technologies, AMR, and 'One Health'.
Image credit: Natalie Bennett (www.nataliebennett.org)
References
1. Bornmann L, Haunschild R, Mutz R. Growth rates of modern science: a latent piecewise growth curve approach to model publication numbers from established and new literature databases. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 2021;8(1):224. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-021-00903-w
2. Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE). MPs to Watch. CaSE. Political Engagement Web site. https://www.sciencecampaign.org.uk/what-we-do/political-engagement/mps-to-watch/#Glossary. Published 2024. Accessed March, 2024.
3. Zheludev IN, Edgar RC, Lopez-Galiano MJ, et al. Viroid-like colonists of human microbiomes. bioRxiv. 2024:2024.2001.2020.576352. DOI: 10.1101/2024.01.20.576352
4. Singh RK, Chang H-W, Yan D, et al. Influence of diet on the gut microbiome and implications for human health. Journal of Translational Medicine. 2017;15(1):73. DOI: 10.1186/s12967-017-1175-y
5. Amato KR, Arrieta MC, Azad MB, et al. The human gut microbiome and health inequities. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021;118(25). DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2017947118
6. CSaP. Scientists and policy makers advise early-career researchers. https://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/news/article-scientists-and-policy-makers-advise-researchers/. Published 2012. Accessed March, 2024.
7. Westcott N. Sovereignty and Brexit: control of what exactly? https://ukandeu.ac.uk/sovereignty-and-brexit-control-of-what-exactly/. Published 2020. Accessed October, 2024.
8. Crace J. With the PM in hiding, Raab takes cover behind 'the science'. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/07/with-the-pm-in-hiding-raab-takes-cover-behind-the-science. Published 2020. Accessed October, 2024.
9. Global burden of bacterial antimicrobial resistance in 2019: a systematic analysis. Lancet. 2022; 399(10325):629-655. DOI: 10.1016/s0140-6736(21)02724-0
10. To ask His Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to stimulate (1) awareness of, and (2) research into, dual use of antifungals in (a) medicine, and (b) agriculture, as well as to engage with relevant stakeholders. https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2022-10-27/HL2950. Published 2022. Accessed October, 2024.
11. Panieri E, Baralic K, Djukic-Cosic D, Buha Djordjevic A, Saso L. PFAS Molecules: A Major Concern for the Human Health and the Environment. Toxics. 2022;10(2). DOI: 10.3390/toxics10020044
12. SEI. Safe planetary boundary for pollutants, including plastics, exceeded, say researchers. https://www.sei.org/about-sei/press-room/safe-planetary-boundary-pollutants-plastics-exceeded/. Published 2022. Accessed October, 2024.
13. Women’s Environmental Network (Wen). Additives in period products, a chemical solution for a social problem? https://www.wen.org.uk/2024/01/09/additives-in-period-products-a-chemical-solution-for-a-social-problem/. Published 2024. Accessed October, 2024.
14. Evans MC, Cvitanovic C. An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers. Palgrave Communications. 2018;4(1):88. DOI: 10.1057/s41599-018-0144-2
15. Stokes K, Bennett N, Fady PE. Guarding Against Antimicrobial Resistance: Towards Responsible Biocide Use in Consumer Goods. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.13627461. Published 2024. Accessed October, 2024.
16. Snow CP. The Rede Lecture (1959). In: The Two Cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1993:1-52.
