Episode 14 -The Science4Parliament Summary (season 1)

Welcome to the summary of season one of the Science4Parliament podcast, the first podcast which aims to foster the relationship between science and decision-makers and show how research and innovation are vital to the equitable and sustainable functioning of our societies and economies.
   
It is presented by Denis Naughten, a directly elected Member of Parliament in Ireland for nearly three decades. Denis has served as an Irish cabinet minister, on the Council of European Union Ministers and chairperson of the Inter-Parliamentary Union Working Group on Science and Technology, based in Geneva, which aims to inspire global parliamentary action through legislative work in the field of science and technology.
   
The overall aim of this podcast is to highlight the work of innovative people in the world of science and to get their perspective on what needs to be done to bring that world and the world of policy closer together.
   
This episode is a short taster of the enlightening and inspiring chats that Denis had on the Science4Parliament podcast. The full episodes and more information about the interviewees are available here:  https://science4parliamentpodcast.buzzsprout.com/

Dr Aoife Braiden, geoscientist and research manager with the Geological Survey of Ireland:  geoscience and critical raw materials

Carlos Álvarez Pereira, a member of the Club of Rome, talks about the part of science in the future of humanity. 

Dr Uzma Alam, program Lead for Science Policy Engagement with the Science For Africa Foundation in Kenya: the science, data and politics link.

Dr Sophia Huyer, gender and social inclusion lead for the programme Accelerating the Impact of Climate Research in Africa  (AICCRA) at the International Livestock Research Institute in Dakar in Senegal: climate change solutions for small farmers, especially women.

Dr. Tim Jacquemard, currently a senior research analyst with Trilateral Research in Waterford and former researcher in residence in the Irish parliament: - e-Health

Dr Cormac Ó Coileáin - a research fellow at the Bundeswehr University Munich, previously a postdoctoral researcher in ASIN in Trinity College Dublin and former researcher in residence in the Irish parliament: - nanotechnology

John Oldfield, CEO of Accelerate Global and former director of Global Water 2020, talks about the power of water caucuses

Dr. Rónán Kennedy, senior lecturer in law at the University of Galway and former researcher in residence in the Irish parliament: law-tech

Dr. Nicholas Vafeas, scientific project officer at Science Foundation Ireland, former policy lead at the Geothermal Association of Ireland and former researcher in residence in the Irish parliament: - geothermal energy 

Dr Mark Costello,  a marine ecology expert and Prof. of Marine Ecology at Nord University, Norway, talks about marine protected areas (MPAs).  

Dr. Boris Galkin, senior researcher at the Tyndall National Institute, former research fellow at the CONNECT Centre in Dublin and former researcher in residence in the Irish parliament: - unmanned aerial vehicles.

Contact  Denis Naughten:
Email:        dnaughten@gmail.com
LinkedIn:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/denis-naughten
X:              https://x.com/DenisNaughten
Blog:         https://substack.com/@denisnaughten
Web:         https://denisnaughten.ie/

Transcript

Episode 14 -The Science4Parliament season 1 summary

SPEAKERS

Denis Naughten, Dr. Aoife Braiden, Carlos Álvarez Pereira, Dr. Uzma Alam, Dr. Sophia Huyer, Dr. Tim Jacquemard, Dr. Cormac Ó Coileáin,  John Oldfield, Dr. Rónán Kennedy, Dr. Nicholas Vafeas, Dr. Mark Costello,  Dr. Boris Galkin

Denis  00:01

Thank you for listening to the first series of the Science4Parliament podcast, the first podcast that aims to foster a relationship between science and the decision and policy makers, to show how research and innovation are vital to the equitable and sustainable functioning of our societies and our economies, and highlight the work of those involved who are trying to bring the world of science and policy closer together. This podcast is one of a number of tools that the working group on science and technology within the Inter-Parliamentary Union are developing to help parliamentarians find, access and use science and research in their work to help strengthen democracy and equality for everyone. 

One of the standout points from the interviews was the importance of communication. I've been told that in a lot of instances, the scientific evidence that gets most credence is the one that has been clearly communicated to the politicians. It may not be the best possible advice, or even the right advice, but is the one that has been clearly communicated. I said in the very first episode of the podcast, when the microphone was being turned on me, that the overall aim of this podcast was serendipity, to whet the appetite of both members of parliament and scientists to actually start the engagement and explore how scientists and academics can bring their research down into simple, understandable concepts that can relate to real people and make a real impact in our society. And of course, advice for members of parliament who want to start a conversation with the scientists and to give them an understanding and appreciation of the policy issues and the challenges and issues that they are facing from a legislative point of view, but also from a representational point of view, and how they impact on people we represent in society as a whole. My guests on the podcast were international and Irish, with both the local and global perspectives, and spoke to me on topics ranging from marine protected areas, geoscience e-health to gender issues and the importance of data and science for evidence-based policy making. 

Denis  02:19

To start off, the first five interviews were with researchers who worked within the Irish Houses of the Oireachtas, the Irish parliament in 2021 as part of the Science Foundation Ireland fellowship programme. They each worked with the Library and Research service within Parliament to produce reports and recommendations for members of parliament on topics which included nanotechnology, drones and law, technology e health and geothermal energy. Other interviewees were people who impressed me at conferences around the world, or who shared some of their work with me in various capacities. These are only a few of the impressive people that I've come across and engaged with over the last number of years, and I hope to include many more in the coming months. Data was an issue that was mentioned by nearly all of the interviewees. And of course, the issue of open-source data is something close to my heart. Dr Aoife Braiden talks about the value of truly open-source data, and how, by making data open and freely available, it can attract investment. 

Aoife  03:30

It's the thing that's most expensive. And we have programs, for example, like INFOMAR, which is a marine mapping program that we do at the Marine Institute. And that data, though, where we mapped offshore, was collected originally as part of the UN Law of the Sea to figure out, you know, where our continental shelf was, but because, for example, the wind, offshore wind, has developed in the meantime, that sector is now using that data. And we regularly get feedback from people to say this data,  having it open and available is amazing, because we can now look at that in the first instance and then target areas that we think are the most appropriate, and then, if needs be, do very fine scale studies, but just having this information available, and that's only one sector that's using that data. 

Denis  04:08

And just on that, because this is an issue that the Inter-Parliamentary Union Working Group on science and technology is coming across on a regular basis, is making data open and freely available. So, what you're saying is that having that data, which the state has paid for, having that open and freely available, is, as a result, attracting investment into the country, investment maybe that we would never have envisaged at the time, that this data was collected?

Aoife  04:34

Absolutely and not just that. It's used by multiple sectors, so everything from transport to, you know, fisheries to recreation and tourism. And in that case, for example, that in from our project, which was finishing in the next couple of years, it's now being that data is now informing, for example, the licensing rounds for the offshore wind, but it's also being used by private companies. So, you're building the SME sector as well, where, you know they don't, they just don't have the funds to be able to go and do that kind of mapping. I mean, we've done studies on that and shown that, you know, the return, conservatively, the return on that is somewhere between four and five times the investment. So, you know, although it sounds like an expensive program to run,  when once you get into the marine, everything is expensive, the return on it is multiple times what the investment is and for multiple decades out into the future.  

Denis  05:20

So having all this data is very important, but so is being able to understand and use it. Carlos Álvarez Pierra, 

Carlos  05:29

We have to overcome a situation in which, to some extent, part of the scientific community which is more engaged in sustainability issues, like, for instance, climate change is still working in a way which is doesn't make easy to interact in a fruitful way with politics, you know? I mean, we have to overcome the situation in which the scientists say, oh, we have done our work. We have raised the alarms, we have analyzed the phenomena, we have compiled the data, and this is what comes out of all that, and we put that in our report, typically, 600 pages report, you know, and now it's the turn to politicians to do their job of implementing The policies which should fix the issues that we have analyzed. You know, I mean extra effort is required to make that happen, because, as you said, first, time scales are completely different, and the time scale of politics and that big issue has become so much focused on short term, not even the electoral cycle. It's, it's what, what will be said tomorrow, the news cycle 

Denis  06:50

now, yeah,

Carlos  06:50

the social media, what will be the trendy topic tomorrow?

Denis  06:54

Dr Uzma Alman, 

Uzma  06:56

We need to understand what is the connection between science, evidence. or what is evidence, and how does that link to politics? Three very abstract topics, so scientific thinking, or science at the core of it, is a way of testing hypothesis in a non-biased way. So, be able to systematically answer a question of interest in a non-biased way, that is a science piece, right? What is the output of that? The output of that is data, right? And there's a difference between data and evidence, so the output of science is, is data, and then how does this data fit into politics? Because you brought up that word, right? It's critical. So for any politician, or any person in a leader's position needs to make choices with limited resources, with specific questions in mind. So how can such people be rest assured that they're making the right decision? One way of doing it is using data, and that's what we call evidence-based decision making.

Denis  07:58

Sophia Hoyer talks about the need for a space where information can be shared.  

Sophia  08:03

So you need to find a way to get in touch with the decision makers, and whether that's a science policy forum, whether it's meetings, such as, you know, climate conferences, whether it's regional meetings such as the Africa climate summit or whatever, there needs to be some sort of forum where policymakers and scientists can interact, and I think that's what we found, is really important. But we also need to be sure that the evidence that we give to policymakers is really solid, and so that the science is rigorous, the methodologies are recognized and rigorous as well, and that we can really say to them, this is what we know. We're pretty sure this is the case. You know, this is, this is the best knowledge that we can pull together using, you know, the best methodologies that we are aware of. And you know, it's also important for it's as important for gender issues as it is important for anything else, because there are common issues across the region, but there are differences as well. And so it's really important to understand what the commonalities are, but what the differences what the differences are. And then part of the focus of ACCRA is then developing the solutions. So it's okay, it's, you know, it's one thing to let people know what the problem is and that there is a problem. But the really important thing, especially now, in terms of where we are in the in the climate crisis globally, we really need to be talking about solutions and adaptation for people and what policy makers can do to support that, 

Denis  09:24

Talking to parliamentarians regarding what influences their decision whether to use a particular piece of research, a few issues come up. One is the credibility of the source. Secondly, is the relevance of the research to the work that they're doing. But the third most important thing was time, and the ease of sourcing and using that information. And this is where parliamentarians need help. Some advice from Dr. Tim Jacquemard, Dr. Cormac Ó Coileáin, John Oldfield and Carlos Álvarez Pereira. First, Dr Tim Jacquemard.

Tim  09:59

This might sound quite trivial, but contact. Contact them. Because all researchers I know, and I've been working in the field now for probably 10 years, they all have something to tell, and they all want to tell that story so they are quite approachable. Find them through LinkedIn or even the University website, but contact them. They're more than happy to engage. 

Denis  10:23

Dr. Cormac Ó Coileáin.

Cormac 10:24

As a problem solver,  by presenting a scientist with a problem, this is always a good place to start. The issue will be, I think, that scientists and politicians sometimes speak the same words, but a different language, so a bit of patience is required.  

Denis  10:41

John Oldfield, 

John Oldfield  10:42

Ask for help. Ask for the data from the scientific community but ask for that data in such a way that they know that data will be converted into tangible, concrete legislative action to prevent that drought which will happen, from becoming a famine, which is optional. The data is out there, but the bridge between data and policy is sometimes missing,

Denis  11:05

and Carlos Álvarez Pereira

Carlos  11:06

My advice would be to meet outside of the usual spaces of politics and the usual protocols of either of politics or of science. So, it's not it will not work if you bring the scientists to the place of government or to the Parliament, it doesn't happen spontaneously. It will not happen either by politicians going to scientific conferences. I think this requires specific spaces where people are invited as people. Where people can really speak in an open way, you know, about what they need, and what are the concerns, and also what is not working. You know, in that, in that kind of dialog, you know, why? Why? As a politician, I'm not being able to listen to you, and this requires, I think, a warm and safe space where a number of things can be expressed, you know, frank conversation. Yes. So the first thing to do is to build trust, trust and respect. You know, if that does not exist, very, very difficult to get anywhere each one, each side of the science and politics from their own frameworks. That will not happen. 

Denis  12:35

And of course, we don't just have to start from the bottom. We can use the work that has already been carried out, and build from there, as both Dr. Cormac Ó Coileáin and Dr. Uzma Alman advise, 

Cormac  12:48

if you are slow getting off the starting blocks, you've got less of a chance by being informed and knowing what's happening, you can not necessarily anticipate the road it'll take, but at least not have to upskill on the language to understand the problem the first place. This is, I think, a critical aspect. I think, let's say things like AI have caught a lot of people unaware, and it is seriously fast developing. Ultimately, it still relies on certain principles. It still relies, let's say, on computers and things like this, if you are at least informed on the scientific basis of it, it shouldn't take too much to actually upskill to where you understand the conversation.  

Denis  13:30

Dr Uzma Alman. 

Uzma  13:31

Data comes from lived, what we call lived experiences. So how people would react to something, or the knowledge people have sat that's not necessarily captured. So, one way, you know, advice to politicians would be to use this evidence that they have as a start to engage with their membership and their constitution to really start having these conversations and saying, Look, this is what our understanding is. What difference is there? And what do you need to add to this? And I can give you a perfect example of this during COVID-19. WHO Africa put out its COVID-19 research and development map, and it had 17 different priorities of what the areas of interest should be across the world for COVID, right? And one of them was strengthening or use of intensive care units for COVID-19 patients. And this was at the start, it was a big thing to get COVID-19, very likely going to end up into intensive care. But when we actually contextualized what that means in our field, right then Africa, it was immediately apparent, even talking to the population, that this wasn't of concern to us. We don't have intensive care units, so it wasn't a priority, right?  

Denis  14:39

Wasn't a priority as they weren’t there in the first place. 

Dr Ronan Kennedy talked about where science can fit into the legislative process.  

Ronan  14:48

What I thought was particularly interesting, was the opportunity that the pre-legislative scrutiny process gave for a more open and maybe creative discussion around the perimeter of a piece of legislation before the text had become that bit more solidified as it turns to, I think, when it goes into the then the formal stages of adoption. 

Denis  15:10

And we as parliamentarians could go one step further and influence research, as Dr Nicholas Vafas suggests. 

Nick  15:19

There's a lot of diplomacy with communication. You've got to really understand what it is that's driving the interest. No one cares about certain facts, but there are other facts that really hit home, and if you can use those interests to drive your research, it's a lot more effective. And that's something that I find a lot of scientists don't get including myself. I didn't understand that.

Denis  15:44

And the question that's often asked of me as a member of parliament of scientists is, how do you figure out those interests?

Nick  15:51

Through communication, through communication, absolutely. One of the big challenges with scientists and researchers is a lack of a platform. Now social media has really tried to bridge that platform, but unfortunately, with social media, you get other challenges, like harassment. Giving a platform to scientists to express their research, but also giving them training to express their research in the right way is essential, and that bridge is missing.  

Denis  16:20

And the interviewees all provided food for thought and challenged conceptions. This is Dr Mark Costello talking about the effects of warming on our oceans. 

We've seen particularly in the North Atlantic last summer, and indications are this summer as well that we have had significant warming of the waters. Is this going to have a big impact on the resilience of our oceans to recover, even if we do put in these marine protected areas? And is this type of overheating happening in other parts of our planet? 

Mark  16:55

Yes, in fact, when I'm living here in Norway, we have the greatest proportional effect of heating. So we've nearly four degrees warming of the sea in the Arctic sea near us. But in fact, we must remember, it's very cold here. Yeah. So one or two degrees in the tropics around the equator can be very harmful because it's exceeded the threshold of all of many of the species that can live there. So we have seen a moving of species away from the equator into middle latitudes, and we've seen…. one of my students published a paper last year showing that twice as many fish species are now living in the Bering Sea, which is just the north of Norway, than were in the 1980s. But is that a bad thing? Nobody's complaining about it with more fish so, and that's because of the warming effect. It's clearly correlated with it? Yeah. So it depends very much on where you are geographically, is whether you regard this is a good or a bad thing. And the thing is, marine species can move quite freely compared to species on land, because the ocean is all connected. So they can move. They've always been moving. We even have fossil evidence from the last Ice Age, which shows that some of the plankton was were had most species at the equator 20,000 years ago, when there was cold, and since then, they've been decreasing at the equator. So still, since the equator is already at the warm limits, for many species, which we haven't really appreciated, we taught the equator some like some like Goldilocks, beautiful, perfect temperature, because we like going to warm climates. But in fact, it's a little bit too hot for a lot of things already, so that increased heating is decreasing things there, and all the evidence shows, and not just the models, but the observations, that fisheries in the equatorial countries are going to suffer a lot from a loss of fish stocks, but fisheries in the northern hemisphere, where we are might actually benefit a bit on the downside, fish get smaller. When they're warmer, they grow faster and they mature in their smaller state. So we won't get such big fish, maybe within a population, as we did before. I'm not that worried about climate change, to be honest, in the ocean. I was also on the International Panel of Climate Change, and it was a bit of an eye opener to me, that the direct human impact of climate change is far worse on our infrastructure, on our own health, than it is going to be on nature in the wild, even though there will be impacts on nature. 

Denis  19:06

And one of the hot topics in the world at the moment is artificial intelligence, its huge potential for society, but also its potential for malice and the ethical concerns surrounding some of its uses, including that of AI drone technology in warfare. Dr. Boris Galken talks about the challenges surrounding these aspects of artificial intelligence and advice for firstly understanding it and then regulating its use.

Boris  19:34

Now, it should be noted that at the United Nations level, there are already proposals being made to regulate and even ban the use of AI and autonomous weapons, essentially AI driven drones that are able to fly and choose their targets without any human involvement and attack them indiscriminately without asking for human approval. This is, of course, a very serious issue. The technology has made this possible. I believe that in Libya, autonomous so-called loitering munitions have already been used where a drone was deployed in the sky, and it was essentially left to its own devices to decide which target to attack. Of course, this is very worrying, and if this proliferates, it'll have serious consequences for civil society, not just for the battlefield. Regulation is of course, going to be one of the ways to address this, but there is going to be a challenge associated with this. I often see a comparison being drawn between regulating AI and autonomous weapons like this and regulating nuclear weapons. Now, unfortunately, that's not a very accurate comparison. Nuclear non-proliferation works because obtaining nuclear materials is difficult, and refining those nuclear materials into a weaponizable form is even more so because it's difficult, it can be overseen, it can be controlled. We can track nuclear material, who has it, who's using it, and we can regulate it. With artificial intelligence, it doesn't require any special materials. A lot of these emerging generative AIs that we are talking about, Chat GPT, Stable Diffusion and so on, they are running on general purpose computer hardware, something that you can go to the shop and buy yourself. In fact, there are hobbyists who are developing their own variants of these, AIs at home. So, the question of regulating and banning this, it has to take a very different form to how we were previously regulated and banned the use of nuclear weapons. So we're talking about a 21st century problem, which requires a 21st century solution, not a 20th century solution, as has been applied previously. 

 Denis  21:26

Thank you for listening to the Science4Parliament podcast. I hope it has provided you with some thoughts and advice which will help you in your evidence-based decision making. If you have any questions, you can get in touch with the science for Parliament podcast by text, just click on the link in the information page, or you can email me at denis.naughten@oireachtas.ie or on social media. And of course, all of the episodes of the podcast are available on Spotify, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Thank you.