Foreword

In an era where evidence-informed policymaking is crucial to addressing complex societal challenges, the role of scientific advice has never been more important. Researchers, especially those in the early and middle stages of their careers, are uniquely positioned to contribute innovative insights and fresh perspectives to policymaking. However, engaging in science advice activities presents particular challenges for them.

This report examines the obstacles that early and mid-career researchers face when providing scientific advice to policymakers and, at the same time, considers the challenges that science advisory bodies themselves face when actively seeking the expertise of early- and mid-career researchers.

We aim to identify and analyse the factors that prevent early- and mid-career researchers from fully contributing their scientific knowledge to evidence-informed policymaking in Europe. This includes examining the barriers that hinder recognition of the value of their expertise and delivered advice as well as its effective integration into policy decisions. The insights presented here derive from the literature, a cross-European survey, a workshop, and a series of discussions that together paint a nuanced picture of the current landscape.

We hope this report serves not only as an insightful analysis of the current situation but also as a catalyst for change. By understanding the hurdles that researchers encounter in the early stages of their careers, we can develop targeted strategies in Europe that support their contributions, ultimately fostering a more robust and inclusive dialogue between science and policy.

We extend our deepest gratitude to the researchers who shared their experiences and insights with us and to all those dedicated to ensuring an equitable, diverse, and inclusive science-for-policy ecosystem worldwide. Together, we can build a future where evidence-informed policy decisions are the norm, benefiting society as a whole.

Helen Eenmaa

Chair of the SAPEA working group on early- and mid-career researchers Member of the SAPEA Board

President of Young Academies Science Advice Structure

Stefan N. Constantinescu

Chair of the SAPEA Board

President of the Federation of European Academies of Medicine Honorary President, Royal Academy of Medicine of Belgium

Executive summary

Diversity is a core value for SAPEA, guiding its mission to provide high-quality, timely and independent scientific evidence, together with evidence-based conclusions and policy options. This commitment includes ensuring that SAPEA considers a wide range of available scientific evidence, engaging experts with diverse perspectives and experiences from various career stages.

In April 2024, SAPEA introduced an initial strategy aimed at increasing the involvement of early- and mid-career researchers (EMCRs; understood as researchers who defended their first doctoral degree no more than 19 years ago) in its activities, recognising that this group faces particular challenges that prevent its optimal participation in the provision of science advice, such as those related to an intense stage in career development, unstable employment, challenging funding conditions, counterproductive evaluation practices, and a demanding phase in life related to building a family.

For addressing the challenges in an evidence-based manner, SAPEA set out to identify the incentives and hurdles to EMCR involvement by carrying out a Europe-wide survey, a literature review and a workshop; and by gathering insights from discussions in SAPEA’s working group on EMCRs and the YASAS network of young academies in Europe. This report offers evidence on some of the challenges and experiences EMCRs encounter in the science-for-policy ecosystem and highlights potential paths forward.

The literature review summarising 50 studies leads to three key findings on how to overcome the challenges for EMCRs in the provision of science advice:

• develop new metrics to ensure recognition and reward for policy engagement

• provide training in science advice and diplomacy and how the policymaking process works; address training and networking challenges (e.g., through institutional support or by supporting professional networks facilitating exchange between the scientific and policy communities)

• better address diversity and inclusion

The published literature does not provide enough evidence to draw conclusions regarding the effects that training and development, or the acknowledgement or compensation of EMCR’s contributions may have on overcoming the challenges they face in delivering science advice or enhancing their involvement in the science-for-policy ecosystem. Accordingly, we may benefit from additional consultation with EMCRs in this respect.

The subsequent survey was conducted with two main aims:

• to evaluate whether the results of the survey align with the findings of the literature review

• to report on any additional insights from the respondents that extend beyond those identified in the literature review

The key findings from the survey can be grouped under the following headings:

• Institutional support: Less than a third of respondents received institutional support, recognition or other incentive for engaging in science-for-policy activities.

• Skills: 58% of respondents reported receiving no formal training in science advice. Moreover, only 30% of respondents reported feeling competent to engage in science advice based on their training so far.

• Interest: Despite these challenges, the respondents expressed a strong interest in participating in science advice. They considered recognition for career development, job security, and [access to training]{.underline} as the top prerequisites for their engagement. The motivation underlying engagement was characterised by the following top three explanations: “I see it as my responsibility as a scientist”, “It contributes to my knowledge”, and “It gives me a sense of purpose”.

• Experience: 28% of all respondents had engaged in high-level science-for-policy activities, with the most common forms of engagement being participation in expert panels, working groups, and consultations. Almost all respondents with prior science advice experience confirmed they would engage again.

Accordingly, several results of the survey support the main findings of the literature review:

• There is a need for institutional support and a system of recognition and other incentives for engagement in science advice as an integral part of the researcher’s career, considering the lack of these indicated by the survey.

• There is a significant gap in science-for-policy training, although one also has to keep in mind that even having received the relevant training, a considerable portion of respondents reported a persisting sense of needing more competence in science advice.

The survey highlighted a clear interest among researchers in engaging in the provision of science advice. Their responses regarding their motivation and the prerequisites of their engagement (e.g., job security in addition to the factors of institutional support, recognition, and effective training programmes mentioned above) provide further insights for developing measures that could address the challenges that EMCRs face in the provision of science advice.

In reading the survey results, its shortcomings should be kept in mind: the relatively small number of responses (844) in comparison with the number of EMCRs in Europe and the substantial overrepresentation of two European countries among the respondents (60% of the responses came from Hungary and Poland, two Widening countries). On the upside, the gender distribution of the respondents was balanced, and most of them were EMCRs or young professionals. Most respondents were aged 25 to 44, with nearly 93% holding or pursuing a doctoral degree.

Introduction

Diversity is a core value for SAPEA, guiding its mission to provide high-quality, timely and independent scientific evidence, together with evidence-based conclusions and policy options, as part of the European Commission’s Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM). While members of SAPEA working groups are always chosen for their scientific excellence and the relevance of their expertise for the topic SAPEA is working on, SAPEA recognises diversity as a major factor that helps to compensate for individual biases and improve the scientific quality of its Evidence Review Reports and other outputs. In addition, diversity is an important objective in its own right.

In line with this, in April 2024, SAPEA introduced a targeted strategy¹ aimed at increasing the involvement of early- and mid-career researchers (EMCRs; understood as researchers who defended their first doctoral degree no more than 19 years ago) in its activities, considering the particular challenges for EMCRs² in the provision of science advice. They are at an intense and demanding stage in their careers, establishing their independence as researchers, facing challenging funding conditions and unstable employment. In addition to conducting research, publishing, and securing competitive short-term research funding, they are also expected to engage in teaching, public outreach, service to the profession, and leadership. For EMCRs, this demanding stage in their careers often coincides with a similarly demanding phase in life related to building a family.

To address the challenges in an evidence-based manner and as part of its efforts to increase the participation of EMCRs in its activities, SAPEA set out to study the hurdles that EMCRs encounter when offering scientific advice to policymakers, as well as the related difficulties that science advisory bodies experience in engaging the expertise of these researchers.

SAPEA is not alone in its effort to study and address the challenges for EMCRs. Several organisations around the world invite the academic community to reconsider and reform the current research and assessment practices across career stages. For example, the Declaration on Research Assessment is a call for improvements in the ways in which researchers and the outputs of scholarly research are evaluated. The Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) includes calls to recognise the diversity of researchers’ contributions and careers in research, advocating assessment that moves beyond the current limited criteria (for instance, mere quantitative indicators). It recommends grounding research assessment primarily on qualitative evaluation, acknowledging the diverse needs and nature of different scientific disciplines.

In line with these initiatives, SAPEA values the diversity of contributions to research and paths in research careers, recognising the importance of researchers’ roles in the provision of science advice. With this report, it seeks to answer two questions:

• What factors prevent EMCRs from contributing their scientific knowledge to evidence-informed policymaking in Europe?

• How do we support and enhance their participation?

This report is based on a literature review and a Europe-wide survey. Its development was additionally supported by a dedicated workshop in Berlin, discussions in SAPEA’s working group on EMCRs, and the YASAS network of young academies.

The chapters of this report first provide an overview of its methodology, then summarise the results of the literature review. Based on the published literature, the report then discusses the main incentives and hurdles for EMCR involvement in policymaking, and recommendations as to how these might be tackled. The report then presents the results of the survey, highlighting the skills, attitudes, experiences and incentives of the respondents in providing science advice, both in general and specifically regarding evidence review within SAPEA working groups.

This report is published with the aim of informing SAPEA’s, the scientific community’s and other stakeholders’ strategies for supporting and enhancing the involvement of EMCRs in science advice activities.

Methodology

Literature review

SAPEA carried out the literature review in two parts, summarising 50 studies. The first review (May 2023) explored incentives and hurdles for EMCR involvement in policymaking. The second review (June 2024) updated the literature on the hurdles faced, with recommendations as to how these might be tackled.

The literature review was based on a rapid review (rather than a systematic review with exhaustive coverage) of some papers that were selected on the basis of their relevance to the search question.

The review summarised searches that were conducted of key databases of academic literature, and a number of grey literature sources selected on the basis of relevance to the search question. The first review (May 2023) identified 37 peer-reviewed publications from the academic and grey literature. The updated review (June 2024) summarised 32 publications, 13 of which were unique to the review update.

Survey

Following the first literature review, SAPEA set out to gather additional insights on the incentives and hurdles to EMCR involvement in science advice by carrying out a Europe-wide survey. The survey was designed to address researchers and research professionals from all career stages, research fields, and levels of experience at the science-policy interface. Its structure and questions were developed by a SAPEA taskforce following the advice of a survey design and methodology expert, members of the working group on EMCRs, and members of the YASAS network of young academies. The survey was handled using the SurveyMonkey software and was active online from 8 February to 31 May 2024. Invitations to complete the survey were shared among SAPEA academy networks and their member academies by email, newsletters and social media.

The survey collected responses from 844 respondents, with 652 respondents (77%) working in an EU Widening country, 137 respondents in an EU non-Widening country, 32 in an EU associated country, and 23 in another country. In reading the results of the survey, it is necessary to keep in mind that the geographical representation of respondents is not representative: more than half of the responses (511 out of 844, 60%) were received from Poland and Hungary, with others distributed among other (mostly European) countries.

Table 1a. Respondents from non-Widening countries (Q9).

Country	Number of respondents
Germany	40
Belgium	27
Spain	14
Finland	13
Austria	8
Ireland	8
Italy	8
Netherlands	7
France	6
Sweden	5
Denmark	1
Sum	137

Table 1b. Respondents from Widening countries (Q9).

Country	Number of respondents
Hungary	397
Poland	114
Slovakia	35
Lithuania	33
Bulgaria	31
Estonia	14
Portugal	7
Latvia	6
Romania	6
Slovenia	5
Greece	2
Croatia	1
Czechia	1
Sum	652

Table 1c. Respondents from associated countries (Q9).

Country	Number of respondents
United Kingdom	27
Switzerland	3
Norway	1
Turkey	1
Sum	32

Table 1d. Respondents from other countries (Q9).

Country	Number of respondents
United States of America	4
Australia	1
Colombia	1
Côte d’Ivoire	1
Egypt	1
India	1
Iraq	1
Liechtenstein	1
Nigeria	1
Uganda	1
Unknown	10
Sum	23

The data analysis addressed the substantial overrepresentation of two countries. The data was not normalised based on population size due to the low number of responses coming from large countries, e.g. Germany and Spain, which have about 10 times more researchers than Poland and Hungary combined. Normalisation would have given too much weight to the distribution of any variable obtained from Germany and Spain, but those distributions would not have been calculated using reasonable samples. Instead, the data was split into two groups for the analysis: (i) the data from Widening countries (hereafter “Widening”, 652 respondents), and (ii) the data from non-Widening countries together with the data from United Kingdom, Switzerland and Norway (hereafter “non-Widening”, 168 respondents). Other responses (24 in total) were excluded from the analyses.

The data analysis was carried out by comparing the bulk responses (i.e., “Widening” together with “non-Widening”, hereafter “Total”) to the responses grouped under the titles “Widening” or “non-Widening”.

The number of responses varied across questions, being relatively small on some occasions. Therefore, each figure in this report presents the number of data points or responses included in the figure and labelled under each bar graph, with percentage distribution being the y-axis value.

A secondary analysis on the data was carried out to determine the association between variables, e.g. age range (Q1) and declared career stage (Q5). A chi-squared test for independence was performed for each comparison. P-values are presented in the title of each figure (with the assumption that when p-value < 0.05, then there is statistically significant dependence between investigated categorical variables). The lower the p-value, the stronger the association.

All calculations were made using R Software (version 4.3.2 (2023–10–31 ucrt), with additional tidyverse and openxlsx libraries. Raw numbers were exported to Excel for the preparation of figures in this report.

Discussions and workshop

In parallel with the literature review and the survey, SAPEA organised a dedicated workshop entitled ’Achieving diversity, inclusiveness and the involvement of early and mid-career researchers in scientific advice" on 23 May 2024 in Berlin. Workshop participants discussed EMCR participation in science advice within SAPEA’s working group on EMCRs, and the YASAS network of young academies in Europe. This allowed for reflection on the results of the literature review and the survey and provided valuable insights in developing this report.

Literature review

Engaging in science advice presents a complex landscape of challenges and opportunities. This chapter delves into a review of the existing literature on the topic, highlighting the key hurdles and incentives that shape researchers’ involvement in this field, with a focus on literature targeting EMCRs. The chapter also reviews recommendations found in the literature for overcoming these hurdles and for empowering EMCRs to contribute to science advice.

The review highlighted the following broad areas, which are presented in more detail below:

• Incentives and hurdles for EMCRs to participate in science advice
• Research practices and culture
• Career development and evaluation
• Skills development and training
• Public engagement and open research
• Science-policy interfaces
• Networking, cooperation and coordination

Area 1: Incentives and hurdles for EMCRs to participate in science advice

Incentives

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in EMCRs and their activities, beyond what has traditionally been understood as the purely ‘academic’ (Carpenter, 2021; Goldman, Ivey, Garcia-Menendez, & Balachandran, 2021; Gustafsson, 2018; Mauduit & Soler, 2020). Recent events, particularly the pandemic, have brought to the fore the need for scientists and scholars to be involved in policymaking, as well as engaging with broader society (Mauduit & Soler, 2020).

Meilianti et al (2022) undertook a global survey of how groups of early-career pharmacists and pharmaceutical scientists are contributing to global health and policy development (broadly defined). They found that involvement of individuals in policy-related activities varied according to the type of activity, ranging from 23% (equality programmes) to 53% (prevention programmes). The study led to recommendations that more be done to connect groups and networks to decision-makers at national level.

Science diplomacy is flagged as a growing field in which EMCRs can be engaged, subject to them receiving sufficient training and support (Mauduit & Soler, 2020). It is suggested that EMCRs could not only engage on the scientific level but also contribute on issues such as social justice, addressing inequalities and the environmental movement (Cuellar-Ramirez, 2021).

Another growing area of interest is the participation of academic researchers in policymaking spaces. In terms of evidence on the involvement of EMCRs, Weakley & Waite (2022) remark that EMCRs as “knowledge producers and brokers in policy spaces are notably absent from both empirical and ‘how to’ literatures (with the exception of Evans and Cvitanovic, 2018)”.

The grey literature suggests there may be a range of reasons why EMCRs’ involvement in science policy should be actively sought, and why young academies and other networks may have a role to play. INGSA (Global Young Academy, 2016) reported on a workshop, organised by the Global Young Academy and sponsored by INGSA and the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre. The sponsoring groups were “curious to see how young scientists could offer a fresh perspective on how the research community can respond to the increasing demand for more open policymaking and what barriers remain in the policymaking community that hamper inclusiveness of scientists”. The workshop highlighted that “young scientists can act as intermediaries/bridges between established and nascent research communities. The young academies (e.g. the Global Young Academy and national young academies) can play a facilitative role in this regard”. Furthermore, “young scientists are community members [and] are often well versed in current forms of social media communication, and can play a role as interlocutors”.

A UPEN blogpost (O’Connor, 2021) highlights:

There are also significant advantages to be had in involving early-career researchers and current students who, with fresh eyes on a problem, can offer a distinctive contribution to the knowledge exchange process (and help diminish the risk of what Anthony King and Ivor Crewe call “cultural disconnect”, where younger demographics are the intended recipient or target of a policy proposal).

Hurdles

Hetherington and Phillips (2020) refer to some of the barriers that contribute to a divide between science and policy. Looking at the barriers faced by scientists, they include:

• scientists’ questioning their own expertise
• believing that their research is too complicated or not relevant to policy
• concerns about the politicisation of science
• limitations of time
• lack of reward for outreach activities
• lack of training

Participation in science advice activities seems to be unevenly distributed across the academic community and scholarly disciplines (Mauduit & Soler, 2020). Carpenter (2021) suggests that it is often the most established scientists who have access to policymakers and opportunities to be involved in science advice. The traditional channels through which individual scientists engage with policymakers can be daunting for an ECR, and it is often more established and senior figures who follow the process through (Carpenter, 2021). In a written submission on how academics interact with UK and Scottish parliamentary committees, Nick Bibby (2019), director of the Scottish Policy & Research Exchange, states that a relatively limited range of expert voices is heard, and that greater diversity is needed in terms of career stage, gender, race, geography and discipline.

In a study performed in the biodiversity science field, EMCRs were interested in engaging in science for policy and believed it to be beneficial in terms of contributing to societal change, understanding policy processes and career development. As barriers, there was a lack of understanding about channels for involvement, engagement opportunities, funding, training, perceived credibility by others and discouragement by supervisors, or pressures to focus on mainstream research. Those more familiar with the science-for-policy process saw fewer barriers and more opportunities. A key reason for dissatisfaction was a lack of impact and uptake of science-policy outputs (Filyushkina et al, 2022). External institutions connected to both the scientific and political communities can help bridge this apparent gap (Gustafsson, 2021; Washbourne et al, 2020). An example in the UK is the MP-scientist partnership promoted by the Royal Society since 2001, which helps to create a common language and establish personal trust relationships to promote evidence-based policies.

Area 2: Research practices and culture

Several articles highlighted the challenges in research practices and culture, particularly affecting EMCRs. For example, Vanholsbeeck (2022) suggests that EMCRs are beginning their careers in a university environment that is limited by managerialism and productivity metrics. An online conference reported by Kent et al (2022), which included 54 experts from 20 countries, identified several areas for reform relevant to science advice, mentioning that EMCRs are vital for adopting new solutions and supporting best practices in reproducible and open science.

Hurdles:

• EMCRs have to contend with a university culture that is characterised by “managerialism” and productivity-focused definitions of excellence (Vanholsbeeck, 2022).

• Research evaluation policies in Europe are heavily based on bibliometrics.

Potential solutions/recommendations identified in the literature:

• Acknowledge the relevance of scientific reform efforts to science advice work, as highlighted by Kent et al (2022).

• Emphasise the importance of EMCRs in changing research practices and culture due to their potential as future leaders and their contribution to diversity, openness to innovation and new methodologies.

Area 3: Career development and evaluation

EMCRs face significant challenges in balancing science-policy work on top of their research, in a career stage that often includes career and funding uncertainty, and high mobility (Evans & Cvitanovic, 2018; Rölfer et al 2022). EMCRs often prioritise activities aligned with their scientific qualities, such as collaboration and networking, more than science advice (Forbrig & Kuper, 2021). They would benefit from more support and greater knowledge of research-policy engagement theory, evidence and practice (Windle and Arciuli, 2022; Yates et al 2024).

The European Commission’s Joint Research Centre (European Commission, 2020) and the International Network for Government Science Advice (Allegra, 2017) both highlight that current career incentive structures do not give priority to science advice, making it less appealing for early-career researchers and limit these young scholars in issues like job insecurity and short-term employment.

In terms of career prospects, Nästesjö (2021) explored how EMCRs deal with uncertainty around their future careers and suggested that concepts such as quality and worth are hard to define, and (2) gatekeepers play a significant role in determining the future of careers. Rölfer et al (2022) concluded that actions to support ECRs included looking for and supporting ‘non-traditional’ metrics of success and impact and working towards the establishment of interdisciplinary boards. Authors suggested that institutions should address funding limitations to create improved career prospects for ECRs and support diversity initiatives.

Hurdles:

• EMCRs have to contend with job insecurity and the resulting need to build a research profile through scholarly publications (‘publish or perish’) and grant success, while trying to maintain a work-life balance, meaning that science-policy work has a lower priority.

• The lack of support, recognition and reward structure for science-policy engagement means that there is little time for this involvement.

• EMCRs also experience issues around inclusion and equality in science-policy work, such as bias in favour of more senior colleagues, gender-related issues and other factors.

Potential solutions/recommendations identified in the literature:

• Shape reforms to the research system in universities and elsewhere, to improve support for science-policy involvement via reward and recognition structures.

• Offer improved career prospects such as longer employment contracts and more tenured positions, allowing more time and opportunity for science-policy work.

• Support diversity/inclusion initiatives that open up more equal opportunities for EMCRs in science-policy work.

Area 4: Skills development and training

EMCRs often lack the necessary skills and training to effectively engage with policymakers and navigate the policy process (Evans & Cvitanovic, 2018; Okewole et al 2020; John et al 2023; Karcher et al 2024). This gap is due to the absence of opportunities offered to them by their institutes, leading to learning on the job. Marshall et al (2017) and Hetherington and Phillips (2020) independently recommend developing relationships with policymakers and the public, being part of the policy process, and working across disciplinary boundaries.

Although there is ample existing literature on science advice, there are no structured systems for imparting such knowledge and it is often the case that science advisers ‘learn by doing’. One possibility is to do a more analysis of learning processes, so that the resulting knowledge can be used as guidance for making the work of advisers, as well as that of science-policy organisations, more flexible and responsive (Obermeister, 2020).

A foundational course in science advice and diplomacy could help bridge this gap (Gustafsson et al, 2020; Mauduit & Soler, 2020; Okewole et al, 2020). Support from academies, learned societies, and professional networks is crucial for building capacities in science advice and diplomacy and act as communities of practice and learning spaces for EMCRs (Carpenter, 2021; Gustafsson, 2018; Gustafsson, 2022; Chanvillard et al 2024; Sales and Navarro 2024) and for this, YASAS could play a vital role.

Finally, recommendations in a report on researcher skills from the European Commission (European Commission, 2024) advocate for the use of ResearchComp³ to centralise and link dedicated skills training courses to competencies and proficiency levels, fostering skills development and recognition for researchers at all career stages.

Hurdles:

• EMCRs are not always skilled or trained in how to engage with decision-makers, to understand how the policy process works or to undertake evidence-based communication and public engagement.

Potential solutions/recommendations identified in the literature:

• Offer courses, workshops and collaborative opportunities to understand science for policy, science diplomacy and legislative processes – covering theory, practice and policy jargon.

• Provide training, support, mentoring and ‘on-the-job’ opportunities for developing science for policy communication skills and competencies.

Area 5: Public engagement and open research

There is a need to move from a traditional linear model of research and knowledge flow towards complex, non-linear interactions between science, policy and practice (Fernández, 2016; Tinch et al, 2018). It requires public engagement and open science practices, actively promoted by universities and research institutes (Caballe & Bardelli, 2022; Schmidt et al, 2018; Skamarauskas, 2017). In the current global media environment, beset by misinformation, evidence-based communication and public engagement have become more important than ever (Caballe & Bardelli, 2022). Blastland et al (2020) introduce the term “evidence communication” to refer to communication about uncertainty and how these narratives are perceived by audiences.

Despite their importance, EMCRs face barriers due to a lack of incentives and training in these areas (Savage, 2013; Blastland et al, 2020). There is a need to improve researchers’ competences on issues such as how to communicate uncertainty, how audiences decide what evidence to trust, and how narratives affect people’s decision-making (VSNU et al 2019; Blastland et al 2020; Caballe & Bardelli, 2022).

Area 6: Science-policy interfaces

Wang et al (2022) put forward recommendations for early career professionals to work at the SPI:

• See it as worthwhile.
• Proactively seek out opportunities.
• Consider how to communicate with influential non-experts.
• Develop personal and professional networks and champion science as a community.
• Seek out training.
• Raise awareness of SPI work.

Hurdles:

• Opportunities at the science-policy interface tend to fall to more established members of the academic community, with a power, politics and discrimination impact on involvement of EMCRs.

Potential solutions/recommendations identified in the literature:

• Build capacity at the science-policy interface via collaborations between academics and policymakers, such as fellowships and internships.

• Develop a structured foundational course for researchers in the principles of science advice and/or science diplomacy

Area 7: Networking, cooperation and coordination

Networking and cooperation among expert organisations in various countries is crucial for influencing policymaking (Marshall et al, 2017; Clark et al 2018; Keller & Limaye, 2020). A JRC-led survey shows that a great majority of “scientists and policymakers continue to lack regular and well-supported opportunities to meet and exchange ideas (71%)” (European Commission, 2022). Studies highlight the need for networks and institutional support for EMCRs (Skamarauskas, 2017; Neilson & Cohen, 2020). For example, Yates (2024) concluded that continued investment in networking opportunities, especially for ECRs, and knowledge exchange activities are essential, including ‘getting to know you’ opportunities to form the basis for future collaborative endeavours, to facilitate the incorporation of more research outcomes into policy and more policy focus into research (Yates 2024).

Hurdles:

• There continues to be a divide between the academic and policy worlds, and challenges for EMCR involvement include dealing with the complexity of the policy ecosystem and policymaking.

Potential solutions/recommendations identified in the literature:

• Support network development across institutions that support EMCRs or connect academics with policymakers, both nationally and internationally.

• Collaboration opportunities can be used to expand professional networks, increase trust and support the development of a shared language between researchers and policymakers.

Conclusions

The literature seems to point to the following areas for action:

• highlighting the role of policy engagement in the reform of research practices and culture, with greater recognition of it in career development, incentive and reward structures

• providing training in science advice and science diplomacy, and how the policymaking process works

• offering more support from organisations such as academies, learned societies, professional networks etc, both nationally and internationally, as a means to the greater involvement of EMCRs at the science-policy interface

The literature review acknowledges a bias in literature towards particular subject areas (notably environmental) and calls for an expansion of the range of EMCR voices from a wider range of disciplines. No hard evidence was identified as to whether training and skills development, acknowledgement or compensation directly enhance the involvement of EMCRs in policymaking, and additional research may be needed.

Survey

Following the literature review, SAPEA conducted a survey to gain further understanding of the complexities and variability among challenges and opportunities that engaging in science advice presents for EMCRs in different parts of Europe. The survey, which consisted in three parts—demographic profile of the respondents, skills in science advice, and incentives for engaging in high-level science advice—had two main objectives: (1) to evaluate whether the results align with the findings of the literature review, and (2) to identify and report any additional insights from respondents that extend beyond those identified in the literature. By asking respondents to reflect on their experience, interest and competence in carrying out science for policy activities, the survey was designed to gain grounded insights on and highlight variations in experiences and perceptions among different subgroups regarding participation in science advice.

Demographic profile of respondents

The majority of survey respondents (75%) were between the ages of 25–34 and 35–44, with the majority holding a doctoral degree (86%) or currently pursuing one (7%). The gender distribution was balanced, with 47% identifying as female, 50% as male, and 0.6% as non-binary.

Respondents were asked to indicate their career stage as early- (ECR), mid- (MCR), or late-career researchers (LCR, in the survey “senior-career researcher”), young or senior professionals. The survey question did not delineate how these career stages ought to be understood; rather, it attempted to capture how respondents categorise themselves. Respondents identified as predominantly at the early and midstages of their career (~83%), with researchers identifying as ECRs (33%) and MCRs (45%), and 5% young professionals. Late career stages were represented by 9% LCRs and 6% senior professionals.⁴

A secondary analysis depicting the relationship between career stage versus age group shows that there is a strong association between age and self-reported career stage. 25–34 year olds identified predominantly as ECRs, whereas the group of 35–44 year olds identified mainly as MCRs (with a p-value <0.001, indicating a statistically significant correlation).

Distribution of year of graduation from highest degree (Q4) separated by self-reported career stage (Q5). For reference, 93.2% of respondents have (87%) or are pursuing (7%) a PhD as their highest degree.

The majority of respondents from Widening countries (68%) held a permanent position, while respondents from non-Widening countries presented a mix of short-term contracts (39%) such as two-year contracts, and to a lesser extent permanent positions (27%).

Respondents represented a balance with regards to membership in an academy or a learned society (n=514), with 41% being active members and 57% having never been a member.

It is also noticeable that over half (58%) of the respondents declared working outside academia (either currently or in the past), including the private sector (n=320) and the public sector (government) (n=172), similarly in Widening and non-Widening countries.

All scientific fields were represented among the respondents with natural sciences (46.6%) and social sciences (20.7%) represented more than others, and similar distributions in both geographical groupings.

In summary, the data predominantly represents young scholars aged 25–44 years holding doctoral degrees, who identify as ECRs or MCRs. The researchers identifying as ECRs were significantly associated with the 25–34-year age group and had obtained their highest degree within the last 7 years. The researchers identifying as MCRs were associated with the 35–44-year age group and had obtained their highest degree within 19 years. This association between the time from graduation (obtaining the highest degree) and the career stage serves as a quantitative reference for the definition of the ECR and MCR categories. Finally, of all respondents, 41% are members and 4% are alumni of an academy of sciences or learned society.

It is important to notice that the data is not representative of all regions of Europe or scientific fields, as it is particularly skewed toward responses from Hungary, Poland, and researchers in the natural sciences.

In summary, the following characteristics of the data must be noted when considering the remainder of this report:

• the geographical representation of the data is skewed toward Hungary and Poland

• there is a gender balance between female and male respondents (47% to 51%)

• most respondents are EMCRs aged 25–45 years holding a doctoral degree

• over half of the respondents reported having worked outside academia (58%)

Measures for effective engagement

The second part of the survey aimed to assess the importance of training and other measures that may be necessary for effective engagement in the provision of science advice for policymaking.

What are science for policy activities?

The concept of ‘science for policy’ used in this survey was explained with the following statement:

Scientists can inform policymakers by providing scientific evidence (eg. scientific publications), or by providing science-based advice (eg. acting as a science advisor, participating in an expert working group or advisory board, contributing to a policy brief) in an impartial, reliable, and transparent way.

Respondents were then asked to provide a free-text example of what they considered science for policy. A word cloud revealed that the most commonly-used words include policy (briefs), publications, science/scientific, expert, advisory (board), government, and Covid.

Training and support

Respondents indicated whether they had ever received training to deliver scientific evidence and/or advice for policymaking, whether they had received recognition for these activities, and whether they felt competent to apply the skills they had acquired.

Of the respondents who provided an answer (n=536), 58% indicated they had not received any training in science advice. Of those who had received training, only 5% had received formal training (provided by university or government).The majority had engaged in informal training or used self-didactic methods (23.5%) such as online classes, networking events, or a mixture of both (13%).

However, competency with newly-acquired skills seems low. Responses indicate (n=548) that most of them could think of one example where science had been used for policy (76%) and most were interested in taking part in science-for-policy themselves (74%). At the same time, only a quarter of them felt supported by their host institutions to engage in science-for-policy or related training (26%) or felt competent to engage with policymakers on the basis of the training they had (30%).

Respondents who had engaged in a science-for-policy activity were then asked to indicate whether they had received recognition for taking part in the activity:

Table 2. Recognition for taking part in science-for-policy work.

Form of recognition	Number of respondents
I didn’t notice any impact on my daily work	101
I have used it in my CV to apply for a job, grant, role or equivalent	71
I was encouraged to take part in the event as a part of my working hours	64
I received funding to join the event	45
I was encouraged to take part by my team leader/ team as part of my career development	34
I received credits as part of my Masters/PhD degree	26
I received a penalty	12
Other	10

Measures helpful for engagement

At the end of the second section of the survey, respondents were asked to consider measures that would help or incentivise them to engage in science for policy activities in the future (or to partake again). They were provided with ten options and were asked to rank them in the order of their importance to them. The table below shows the number of respondents who ranked each option as their first, second or third choice (n=507):

Table 3. Measures to help or incentivise engagement in science-for-policy work (responses ranked in top 3).

Measure	Number of respondents
To be able to credit this work in benefit of my career development	279
Good job security	274
Access to training to gain relevant skills	223
To have a better understanding of how my research is relevant to a policymaker	168
To have a better understanding of how policymaking works	143
To include this activity as part of my job description	120
To have concrete examples of how my field has contributed to informing policy	97
To have a better understanding of the current national/EU/international policy topics	95
To receive support or encouragement from my supervisor	69
To receive support or encouragment from my peers	53

Conclusions

The highest-valued measures to support engagement in science-for-policy activities (for the first time, again, or more frequently) were the ability to credit the activity as part of career development, good job security, and access to training to gain relevant skills. This suggests that the main challenges in researcher engagement are the lack of reward, recognition and institutional support (or broader support) for these activities. In addition, respondents reported a low level of training in science advice and the need to acquire knowledge and skills in the field as one of the measures supporting their engagement.

In summary, the survey provides the following results on the skills and competencies in science advice, and attitudes towards it:

• Most respondents are interested in participating in science advice (74%).

• The highest-valued supporting measures for engagement are (1) receipt of recognition or reward for the activity in career development, (2) job security, and (3) training in relevant skills.

• Only 30% feel competent to engage with policymakers based on the knowledge and skills they have.

• Over half of the respondents have not received training in science advice (58%).

• Only a quarter of respondents feels supported by their host institution to engage in science for policy activities or training in the field (26%).

High-level science advice

The third section of the survey explored respondents’ attitudes towards engagement in high-level science advice and their main incentives in this work. The survey used the term ‘high-level science-for-policy’ in this context, and defined it in the following manner:

In this survey, we refer to high-level science-for-policy as activities where you contribute evidence to policymakers at the highest levels of government (national advisory groups, SAPEA, IPCC, advisory groups of the EC, OECD, WHO, UN, etc).

28% of the respondents had engaged in high-level science for policy, most commonly as part of an expert working group (n=74), expert consultation (58) or expert panel (55). ECRs had the lowest participation rate, with only 20% reporting previous engagement in high-level science advice compared to 25% of MCRs. The number of LCR respondents was too small for a meaningful comparison.

The survey asked respondents to indicate why they would (or why they consider it important to) provide science advice to policymakers, eliciting the following responses:

Table 4. Reasons for providing science advice (again) to policymakers.

Reason	Number of respondents
I see it as my responsibility as a scientist	274
It contributes to my knowledge	167
It gives me a sense of purpose	151
I expand my network	133
I enjoyed the experience	113
It is good for my career development	96
I am considering this as a career change	95
I would not like to engage (again)	52

Equality, diversity and inclusion

Respondents were asked to reflect on equality, diversity and inclusion in science advice. The aim was to evaluate whether EMCRs in the science-for-policy environment had access to the same opportunities (equality), whether individual differences were valued (diversity), and whether researchers felt safe and welcome (inclusion).

Answering the question, whether their contributions or perspectives were included in the final policy output, 32% of respondents answered ‘yes’, while the majority (60%) were unsure, and a small minority (7%) felt their input was not included.

Building on the previous question, respondents were asked to reflect on the science-for-policy activities in which they had participated and identify any possible biases or discrimination. They were specifically asked whether their gender, sexual orientation, country of origin, ethnic background, religion, career stage, parental status, field of research or different abilities had positively, negatively, or neutrally influenced how their contributions to science-for-policy were perceived by others.

With regard to gender, 11% of respondents reported they had perceived a bias. However, while respondents from Widening countries reported it as a negative bias, those from non-Widening countries reported it as having a positive influence. The nature of the positive or negative perception was not investigated in detail in the survey.

Regarding parenthood, respondents from non-Widening countries reported no bias, whereas 9% of those from Widening countries experienced negative bias due to being a parent.

The most frequently reported discrimination (22%) was based on respondents’ country of origin. This was more pronounced in Widening countries (26%) compared to non-Widening countries (9%), though the sample sizes are too small for direct comparison. The majority in both groups (71%) indicated ‘no effect’ or ‘not applicable to me’.

43% of respondents reported that their career stage influenced how they were perceived, with opinions evenly split between positive and negative impacts. Additionally, there was some indication that contributions from certain fields of research may be perceived more positively over others.

Additional hurdles

The survey included two open-ended questions (Q26, Q31) asking respondents to identify any additional hurdles that they have encountered in science advice, describe how they addressed these, and add further comments. Based on their accounts (48 responses to Q26; 30 responses to Q31), researchers’ participation in providing science advice may be hindered by several additional factors (supplementing those mentioned earlier in the survey, i.e., gender, sexual orientation, country of origin, ethnic background, religion, career stage, parental status, field of research, special needs).

Institutional hurdles:

• bureaucratic complexities: the challenge of navigating intricate procedures when applying for science-for-policy roles.

• lack of transparency: negative perception and consequences stemming from unclear processes in the formation of expert groups

• corruption: encountering unethical practices that undermine the integrity of science-for-policy processes

• unsupportive environment: unsupportive academic or institutional culture

• insecure and inadequate research funding: insufficient and unreliable funding for research and academic positions

Individual hurdles:

• lack of institutional affiliation: being an independent researcher without formal ties to a university or research institute

• instability disadvantage: the pressures and insecurity associated with working under short-term employment contracts

• time scarcity: the difficulty of balancing an existing workload – research, projects, teaching, and other responsibilities – leaving little time for additional engagements like providing science advice

• geographic disadvantage: added costs and time constraints of contributing to science advice from a remote location

• lack of recognition: not receiving credit for contributions as an academic expert or advisor

• uncompensated or underfunded advisory roles: the unfairness and costs related to being asked to provide advice without adequate compensation or funding for necessary research

• short notice: the challenge of being expected to deliver scientific advice on very short notice.

• political pressures: the expectation to align with specific political views or pledge loyalty beyond providing scientific evidence.

• self-assessed expertise gap: the difficulty in accurately gauging one’s expertise, especially when comparing oneself to seasoned experts, leading to hesitation in contributing to science advice

Operational hurdles:

• interdisciplinary collaboration complexities: the difficulties of interdisciplinary collaboration, including communication barriers and conflicting approaches

• language barriers: the difficulty of providing advice in a non-native language, complicating communication and precision

• difficulty in engaging policymakers: the challenge of reaching policymakers or generating their interest in scientific evidence

• government disregard for scientific evidence: the issue of policymakers’ lack of interest in or competence in requesting and using scientific input from both fundamental and applied research

As the responses indicate, when evaluating EDI policies, one should consider a longer list of factors giving rise to biased treatment or discrimination. For example, several respondents highlighted the significance of lack of institutional affiliation, noting that the perception of one’s contribution in science advice varies (potentially in an unjustifiable manner) depending on whether it was made as an independent researcher or as a member of a long-standing consortium. The contribution of the consortium may be treated more favourably independent of its substantive value, particularly when the consortium can also make reference to the seniority of its members and its resources. The case described by one respondent may be helpful in understanding how this may challenge EMCRs’ participation in science advice:

A for-profit company led by senior researchers having worked in consultancy for decades was contracted to do the bulk of the job due to the seniority of the people working there and due to their better equipment with resources (people working on the project) than me as an individual researcher. Although my input was much appreciated by the municipality, it could not get directly implemented due to its contradiction to the ideas of the private sector think tank. Due to the disagreements over the strategy, the final report was written by the think tank who insisted on deleting some of the input I gave. As the municipality representatives agreed with me rather than the think tank, the solution was to publish the report as a non-binding policy proposal written by the think tank. Although the municipality offered me a job after the project, I couldn’t accept it as I would have had to exit academia to be committed to policymaking full time. The policy of the municipality wouldn’t have allowed me to work for them part time or as a consultant so our cooperation ended.

A similar challenge is echoed by another respondent (the name of the country is omitted from the response):

Policymakers in [country name] do not take into account individual scientist opinions. Scientist can at least partly to try influence policy only if he/she is in some non-governmental organisation or in some board.

Additionally, it is important to highlight challenges that may not be immediately recognised as discriminatory treatment. Several respondents drew attention to the factor described as “short-notice advisory requests”. Challenges arising from requests to provide scientific advice on very short notice pose obstacles for participation and particularly impact researchers already working under demanding or unstable conditions (being particularly relevant among EMCRs). The following two responses help to characterise this challenge further:

Being given ridiculous times for completion, e.g. 3 months for a nationally representative survey study, including literature review, methodology creation, field access negotiation, data collection, analysis and reporting while being forced to work part time on top of the full time job.

Another problem is with timing, when politicians come with complex problem and give you only few days or even few hours to provide an evidence-based solution, which is not realistic. So here the long term planning is required and fast solutions only possible when unexpected crises appear, otherwise its not evidence based but intuitive decisions.

Despite its preliminary nature, the list of additional hurdles highlights the need for further study on the prevalence and impact of each factor. The responses indicate that at least some of the challenges researchers face in the provision of science advice may be particular to EMCRs.

Participating in SAPEA

The last part of the survey addressed respondents’ attitudes towards participating in science advice in the framework of SAPEA, asking how competent they would feel to join a SAPEA working group and how interested they would be in such engagement, considering the scenario they were provided:

You have been invited to join a SAPEA working group to prepare an Evidence Review Report (ERR) in your field of expertise, as requested by the European Commission. You are one of the 10 high-level experts selected from across Europe and amongst your field to join the working group. You will have 3 months to meet (mostly online), gather scientific evidence, consider literature reviews, attend expert workshops to consult with other experts, and contribute to the writing of the ERR. The ERR will be peer-reviewed and you will contribute to responding to the comments for the final version of the ERR. Following its publication, you are invited by SAPEA to join a expert panel discussion as an outreach event.

Respondents self-assessed their competence to engage in such work:

For those who would be willing to join the working group, this was primarily driven by the sense that engaging in science impact activities is important (76%), and the interests in gaining additional experience in science advice (53%), and expanding one’s network (50%). Respondents indicated a variety of ways in which they can contribute to the working group, including participating in discussions (76%), contributing to the evidence review report (57%), responding to peer reviews (55%), presenting evidence to a policy audience (53%), engaging in expert panel discussion (49%), and gathering scientific evidence (48%).

Conclusions

The analysis of the responses given in the third part of the survey shows a high interest among researchers to engage in science advice, driven by a sense of responsibility and the pursuit of new knowledge and purpose (Fig 14). Across geographical groupings, most (60%) respondents were unaware to what extent their input was used in the final policy deliverable (Fig 15). While this did not appear to be a deterrent to engage in similar activities again (Fig 12), those participating in science advice might find it helpful to have more information on the impact of their science for policy activities.

The key insights of this section can be summarised as follows:

• Respondents declared a strong willingness to engage (again) in science advice for policy.

• 20% of ECRs and 25% of MCRs had participated in high-level science advice.

• The primary motivational drivers for engaging in science advice were: (1) fulfilling one’s responsibility as a scientist, (2) gaining new knowledge, (3) gaining a personal sense of purpose, and (4) expanding one’s network.

• Respondents perceived gender as potentially having both a negative and positive impact on the perception of one’s contributions to science advice.

• 10% of respondents from Widening countries reported experiencing a negative gender-based bias.

• 43% of respondents reported that their career stage influenced how their contributions were perceived, with opinions evenly split between positive and negative impacts.

• 22% of respondents reported experiencing a negative bias related to the country of origin.

• Open responses suggest that further examination of EDI-related challenges and other barriers to participation in science advice is warranted in the future.

Conclusion

The report highlights several critical areas that need to be addressed to support and enhance the involvement of EMCRs in science advice activities. The literature emphasises the importance of recognizing policy engagement as a vital component of research practices and culture, necessitating its integration into career development, incentive, and reward structures. Additionally, there is a clear need for more targeted training in science advice, science diplomacy, and the policymaking process, alongside increased support from organisations such as academies, learned societies, and professional networks, both nationally and internationally.

The survey results underscore these findings, highlighting significant challenges to researcher engagement that arise from inadequate reward, recognition and institutional support for participation in science-policy activities. A clear gap exists between the level of institutional support available and the strong interest and willingness of researchers to engage in science advice. Despite 74% of respondents expressing interest in participating, 58% have not received sufficient training, and only a small proportion feel equipped to engage with policymakers (30%) or supported by their host institutions (26%).

The survey indicates that the highest valued measures to support engagement include recognition of science advice in career development, job security, and access to relevant training. The data also shows that EMCRs are incentivised by a sense of responsibility, the pursuit of new knowledge, personal purpose, and network expansion. However, concerns remain regarding the influence that multiple institutional, personal, and operational barriers have on their engagement in science advice, and even where engaged, the impact that gender, career stage, and country of origin have on the perception of their contributions.

Recognizing these challenges, the scientific community and other stakeholders operating at the science-policy interface – including academies, learned societies, and professional networks – can play a vital role in strengthening EMCR participation. They can do so by acknowledging and rewarding contributions to science advice, such as participation in expert groups, peer review, outreach, and training. By improving impact monitoring, organisations can better convey the significance of science advice, its importance in academic careers, and the benefits of rewarding it. The endorsement of CoARA principles and the alignment of research evaluation criteria across academic institutions, funding bodie, and other organisations operating at the science-policy interface are crucial for enhancing EMCR involvement.

In summary, while there is a strong willingness among researchers to engage in science advice, significant challenges related to training, recognition, and equity need to be addressed. The findings suggest focusing future efforts on creating a more supportive environment for EMCRs in the science-policy interface, with a particular emphasis on rewarding their contributions, acknowledging these in career development, increasing engagement opportunities, and tackling challenges of equality, diversity and inclusion. By addressing these challenges, the research community can better leverage the expertise of EMCRs, ultimately strengthening the link between science and policy.

References

Allegra, A. (2017). INGSA workshop on social science advice to policy: perspectives from an early career researcher. https://ingsa.org/ingsa-news/ingsa-workshop-on-social-science-advice-to-policy-perspectives-from-an-early-career-researcher/

Bibby, N. (2019). The effectiveness and influence of the select committee system inquiry. https://www.upen.ac.uk/news/latest_news/?action=story&id=62

Blastland, M., Freeman, A. L. J., van der Linden, S., Marteau, T. M., & Spiegelhalter, D. (2020). Five rules for evidence communication. Nature, 587(7834), 362–364. doi: https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1038/d41586–020–03189–1

Caballe, A., & Bardelli, M. (2022). Building Blocks of Virtuous Science Communication: Grant Funding, policymaking, and Public Engagement. DNA and Cell Biology, 41(1), 6–10. doi:10.1089/dna.2021.0523

Carpenter, B. (2021). Opportunities for early-career researchers to engage with science policy through the Biochemical Society. The Biochemist, 43(6), 90–91. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1042/bio_2021_182

Chanvillard, L., Franz, P., Grasso, M., Pale, U., Robin, P. (2024). "“How to Bridge the Gap”: Empowering Early-Career Scientists to Navigate the Science-Policy Interface—Conclusions from a Summer School." [Journal of Science Policy & Governance]{.underline} 24(01 [[http://dx.doi.org/10.38126/jspg240104]{.underline}](http://dx.doi.org/10.38126/jspg240104))

Clark, P. G. K., McCoy, J. M., Chik, J. H. L., Hajihosseini, A., Lasalle, M., Kent, B. A., & Vogt, S. L. (2018). Shaping the future of research: A perspective from early career researchers in Vancouver, Canada [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]. F1000Research, 7. doi:10.12688/f1000research.15385.1

CoARA (2022) Agreement on reforming research assessment. https://coara.eu/agreement/the-agreement-full-text/

Cuellar-Ramirez, P. (2021). Science Diplomacy for Climate Action and Sustainable Development in Latin America and the Caribbean: How Important Is the Early Career Perspective to New Governance? Frontiers in Research Metrics and Analytics, 6, 657771. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/frma.2021.657771

DORA. San Francisco declaration on research assessment. https://sfdora.org/

European Commission. (2020). Science for policy handbook. Editors Vladimír Šucha and Marta Sienkiewicz. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978–0–12–822596–7.01001–9

European Commission. (2022). Supporting and connecting policymaking in the Member States with scientific research: Commission staff working document. Accessed from: [[https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/SWD_2022_346_final.PDF]{.underline}](https://knowledge4policy.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/SWD_2022_346_final.PDF)

European Commission. (2024). Researchers’ skills. Retrieved from: https://european-research-area.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/2024–04/Report%20on%20researchers%20skills-March%202024.pdf

Evans, M. C., & Cvitanovic, C. (2018). An introduction to achieving policy impact for early career researchers. Palgrave Communications, 4(1). doi:10.1057/s41599–018–0144–2

Fernández, R. J. (2016). How to be a more effective environmental scientist in management and policy contexts. Environmental Science and Policy, 64, 171–176. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2016.07.006

Filyushkina, A., Ryu, H., Kadykalo, A. N., Murali, R., Campagne, C. S., Washbourne, C.-L., … Amiar, T. (2022). Engaging at the science-policy interface as an early-career researcher: experiences and perceptions in biodiversity and ecosystem services research. Ecosystems and People, 18(1), 397–409. doi:10.1080/26395916.2022.2085807

Forbrig, D., & Kuper, H. (2021). Early career researchers’ engagement in proactive career behaviour:

investigation of the extent and favourable influences. European Journal of Higher Education, 11(4), 432–460. doi:10.1080/21568235.2020.1871391

Global Young Academy. (2016). Broadening the scope of science advice: Engaging knowledge-creators beyond the academy. Workshop report. https://www.ingsa.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/GYA_JRC_INGSA_Workshop_2016.pdf

Goldman, G. T., Ivey, C. E., Garcia-Menendez, F., & Balachandran, S. (2021). Beyond the Lab: Early Career Researchers May Find Purpose through Policy, Advocacy, and Public Engagement. Environmental Science & Technology, 55(5), 2720–2721. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c00495

Gustafsson, K. M. (2018). Producing expertise: the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services’ socialisation of young scholars. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences, 15(1), 21–39. doi:10.1080/1943815x.2018.1439509

Gustafsson, K. M. (2021). Expert organisations’ institutional understanding of expertise and responsibility for the creation of the next generation of experts: comparing IPCC and IPBES. Ecosystems and People, 17(1), 47–56. doi:10.1080/26395916.2021.1891973

Gustafsson, K. M. (2022). Expert organisations as a space for early-career development: Engaging in service while balancing expectations on research and teaching. Environmental Sociology. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23251042.2022.2148154

Gustafsson, K. M., Díaz-Reviriego, I., & Turnhout, E. (2020). Building capacity for the science-policy interface on biodiversity and ecosystem services: Activities, fellows, outcomes, and neglected capacity building needs. Earth System Governance, 4. [[http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2020.100050]{.underline}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.esg.2020.100050)

Hetherington, E. D., & Phillips, A. A. (2020). A Scientist’s Guide for Engaging in Policy in the United States. Frontiers in Marine Science, 7, 409. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2020.00409

John, T., Cordova, K.E., Jackson, C.T. et al (2023). "Engaging Early-Career Scientists in Global policymaking." Angewandte Chemie International Edition 62(34): e202217841. https://doi.org/10.1002/anie.202217841

Karcher, D. B., Tuohy, P., Cooke, S.J., Cvitanovic, C. (2024). "Knowledge exchange at the interface of marine science and policy: A review of progress and research needs." Ocean and Coastal Management 253 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2024.107137

Keller, A. B., & Limaye, V. S. (2020). Engaged science: Strategies, opportunities and benefits. Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(19). doi:10.3390/su12197854

Kent, B. A., Holman, C., Amoako, E., Antonietti, A., Azam, J. M., Ballhausen, H., … Weissgerber, T. L. (2022). Recommendations for empowering early career researchers to improve research culture and practice. PLOS Biology, 20(7), e3001680. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3001680

Marshall, N., Adger, N., Attwood, A., & al, e. (2017). Empirically derived guidance for social scientists to influence environmental policy. PLOS ONE. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0171950

Mauduit, J.-C., & Soler, M. G. (2020). Building a Science Diplomacy Curriculum. Frontiers in Education, 5, 138. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00138

Meilianti, S., Oliveira, R., Okoya, F., Ercolin, L., Mill, D., Obidiegwu, O., … Lim, R. (2022). How are groups of early career pharmacists and pharmaceutical scientists contributing to global health and policy development: A cross-sectional survey. Res Social Adm Pharm. doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2022.11.012

Nästesjö , J. (2021). Navigating Uncertainty: Early Career Academics and Practices of Appraisal Devices. Minerva, 59(2), 237–259. doi:10.1007/s11024–020–09425–2

Neilson, A and Cohen, K (2020). ‘Influencing Policy as an Early-Career Researcher’, The Center for Science and Policy, University of Cambridge. Available at: http://www.csap.cam.ac.uk/Research-Policy-Engagement/spotlights-blogs/influencing-policy-early-career-researcher/

OECD (2015), Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development, The Measurement of Scientific, Technological and Innovation Activities, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264239012-en.

Obermeister, N. (2020). Tapping into science advisers’ learning. Palgrave Communications, 6(1). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/s41599–020–0462-z

O’Conner, S. (2021). Avoiding group-think in policymaking. UPEN blog 18 August 2021. London: University College London https://upen.ac.uk/resources/Avoiding-groupthink-in-policymaking/

Okewole, H., Merritt, C., Mangezi, W., Mutiso, V., Jack, H. E., Eley, T. C., & Abas, M. (2020). Building career development skills for researchers: A qualitative study across four African countries. Annals of Global Health, 86(1), 40. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.5334/aogh.2759

Rőlfer, L., Ilosvay, X.E.E., Ferse, S.C.A. et al (2022). "Disentangling obstacles in knowledge co-production for early-career researchers in the marine sciences." Frontiers in Marine Science 9. 893489, http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmars.2022.893489

Sales, R. K. and M. A. Navarro (2024). "Early career researchers in health policy and systems research: insights from freelancers in a non-profit organisation in the Philippines." Health Research Policy and Systems 22 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12961–024–01142–6

SAPEA (2024). Initial strategy to increase the involvement of early- and mid-career researchers in SAPEA. Berlin: SAPEA. DOI 10.5281/zenodo.10926443Xxx

Savage, L. (2013). A View from the Foothills: Public Engagement among Early Career Researchers. Political Studies Review, 11(2), 190–199. doi:10.1111/1478–9302.12010

Schmidt, B., Bertino, A., Beucke, D., Brinken, H., Jahn, N., Matthias, L., … Bargheer, M. (2018). Open science support as a portfolio of services and projects: From awareness to engagement. Publications, 6(2). doi:10.3390/publications6020027

Skamarauskas, A. (2017). Why it’s never too early to start Standing up for Science. Biochemist, 39(5), 40–41. doi:10.1042/bio03905040

Tinch, R., Balian, E., Carss, D., & al, e. (2018). Science-policy interfaces for biodiversity: dynamic learning environments for successful impact. Biodiversity and Conservation. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10531–016–1155–1 15

Vanholsbeeck, M. (2022). Between the traditional, the neo-liberal and the open university Early career investigators caught in the triple bind of academic career requirements. SocArXiv. doi:10.31235/osf.io/y9r24

VSNU, NFU, KNAW, NWO & ZonMw. (2019). Room for everyone’s talent: towards a new balance in the recognition and rewards of academics. https://recognitionrewards.nl/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/position-paper-room-for-everyones-talent.pdf

Wang, M., Green, C., Wang, Z. (2022). "Six Recommendations for Early Career Professionals to Join Work at the Science-Policy Interface: Collective Experience from Academic, Governmental, and NGO Scientists." [Environ Sci Technol]{.underline} 56(24): 17506–17509. [[http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c08290]{.underline}](http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.2c08290)

Washbourne, C. L., Dendoncker, N., Jacobs, S., Mascarenhas, A., De Longueville, F., van Oudenhoven, A. P. E., … Van Dijk, J. (2020). Improving collaboration between ecosystem service communities and the IPBES science-policy platform. Ecosystems and People, 16(1), 165–174. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/26395916.2020.1766573

Weakley, S., & Waite, D. (2022). Academic knowledge brokering in local policy spaces: negotiating and implementing dynamic idea types. Evidence & Policy, 1–18. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16638549272196

Windle, A., & Arciuli, J. (2022). Research-policy engagement activities and research impact: nursing and health science researcher perspectives. Evidence & Policy, 1–18. doi:https://dx.doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16645282386107

Yates, K. L., Copping, J.P., Tweddle, J.F., O’Leary, B.C. (2024). "Benefits and barriers for researcher-practitioner collaboration on marine and coastal management issues." Environmental Science & Policy 155., http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2024.103713

Annexes

List of abbreviations

• CoARA: Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment
• ECR: Early career researcher
• EMCR: Early and mid-career researcher
• GCSA: Group of Chief Scientific Advisors, part of the SAM
• LCR: Late-career researcher
• MCR: Mid-career researcher
• SAM: Scientific Advice Mechanism to the European Commission
• SAPEA: Science Advice for Policy by European Academies
• SPI: Science-policy interface
• YASAS: young academies Science Advice Structure

Acknowledgements

SAPEA is grateful to the 844 respondents of the online survey. SAPEA thanks Lydia Repke from the Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences for her advice on the design of the survey, and the young academies for their advice and help in its development and distribution. SAPEA is grateful to YASAS and its member academies, the working group on EMCRs, the task force, and the literature review team for their contributions to the development of this report.

Working group

• Helen Eenmaa, Associate Professor of Governance and Legal Policy, University of Tartu, President of YASAS, SAPEA Board member

• Georges Casimir, Permanent Secretary of the Belgian Royal Academy of Medicine (ARMB), FEAM

• Anna Fabijańska, Professor of Engineering and Technical Sciences, Lodz University of Technology, Euro-CASE (from June 2024)

• Lara Keuck, Professor for History and Philosophy of Medicine, Bielefeld University & ALLEA Board member, ALLEA

• Ben McAlinden, Head of International Partnerships, Royal Academy of Engineering, Euro-CASE (until May 2024)

• Marcel Swart, ICREA Professor of Experimental Sciences & Mathematics, University of Girona, Academia Europaea

Task force

• Stephany Mazon, Scientific Policy Officer, YASAS

• Rúben Castro, Scientific Policy Officer, FEAM (until Dec 2023)

• Rafael Carrascosa Marzo, Scientific Policy Officer, Academia Europaea (until Feb 2024)

• Marie Franquin, Scientific Policy Officer, Euro-CASE (until Jun 2024)

• Rudolf Hielscher, Coordinator, acatech

• Hannah MacDonald, Scientific Policy Officer, FEAM (from Jun 2024)

• Céline Tschirhart, Scientific Policy Officer, ALLEA

• Toby Wardman, Head of Communications

Literature review team

• Rafael Carrascosa Marzo, Scientific Policy Officer, Academia Europaea (until Dec 2023)
• Louise Edwards, Hub Manager, Academia Europaea Cardiff, and Scientific Policy Officer, Academia Europaea
• Frederico Rocha, Manager, European Documentation Centre
• Alison Weightman, Director, Specialist Unit for Review Evidence (SURE), Cardiff University

YASAS Board

• Helen Eenmaa, Associate Professor of Governance and Legal Policy, University of Tartu, Estonian young academy of Sciences, President of YASAS
• Noel de Miranda, Principal Investigator of the Cancer Immunogenomics group, Leiden University Medical Center, Dutch young academy and young academy of Europe (from May 2024)
• Markus Prutsch, Associate Professor of Modern and Contemporary History, Heidelberg University, Global Young Academy
• Maciej Salaga, Professor at Medical University of Lodz, Polish young academy
• Viktorija Vaštakaitė-Kairienė, Chief Researcher at Lithuanian Research Centre for Agriculture and Forestry, Associate Professor at Vytautas Magnus University Agriculture Academy, Lithuanian Academy of Sciences young academy (until May 2024)
• Sarah Verhulst, Professor in Hearing Technology, Ghent University, young academy of Belgium

Literature review search

Databases searched for publications from 2013–2023 in Feb 2023 and from 2023–2024 in May 2024:

Source	Date searched	Search strategy	Number added to EndNote	Notes
Dimensions	02/02/2023	(“Early career” OR “mid career” OR young OR junior) AND (researcher* OR academic* OR scholar*) AND (“policy advice” OR “policy mak*” OR “science-policy” OR “policy-science” OR “science for policy” OR “policy engagement”) AND (survey* OR interview* OR reward* OR recogni* OR engage*)	61
Dimensions	21/05/2024	(“Early career” OR “mid career” OR young OR junior) AND (researcher* OR academic* OR scholar*) AND (“policy advice” OR “policy mak*” OR “science-policy” OR “policy-science” OR “science for policy” OR “policy engagement”) AND (survey* OR interview* OR reward* OR recogni* OR engage* OR barrier* OR hurdle*); (“Early career” OR “mid career” OR young OR junior) AND (researcher* OR academic* OR scholar*) AND (“policy advice” OR “policy mak*” OR “science-policy” OR “policy-science” OR “science for policy” OR “policy engagement”) AND (skill* OR training OR fellowship* OR internship* OR education OR opportunit* OR mentor* OR course* OR induction* OR development OR recognition OR “capacity building” OR reward* OR incentive* OR network* OR collaboration* OR connection* OR partnership*)	26
Embase (Ovid)	02/02/2023	(Early career OR mid career OR young OR junior) adj2 (researcher* OR academic* OR scholar*) AND (policy advice OR policy mak* OR science-policy OR policy-science OR science for policy OR policy engagement) AND (survey* OR interview* OR reward* OR recogni* OR engage*)	11
Embase (Ovid)	21/05/2024	(Early career OR mid career OR young OR junior) adj2 (researcher* OR academic* OR scholar*) AND (policy advice OR policy mak* OR science-policy OR policy-science OR science for policy OR policy engagement) AND (survey* OR interview* OR reward* OR recogni* OR engage* OR barrier* OR hurdle*); (“Early career” OR “mid career” OR young OR junior) ADJ2 (researcher* OR academic* OR scholar*) AND (“policy advice” OR “policy mak*” OR “science-policy” OR “policy-science” OR “science for policy” OR “policy engagement”) AND (skill* OR training OR fellowship* OR internship* OR education OR opportunit* OR mentor* OR course* OR induction* OR development OR recognition OR “capacity building” OR reward* OR incentive* OR network* OR collaboration* OR connection* OR partnership*)	12
HMIC (Ovid) grey literature	02/02/2023	As Embase	0
Medline (Ovid)	02/02/2023	As Embase	9
Medline (Ovid)	21/05/2024	As Embase	10
Overton	02/02/2023	(“Early career” OR “mid career” OR young OR junior) AND (researcher~ OR academic~ OR scholar~) AND (“policy advice” OR “policy mak~” OR “science-policy” OR “policy-science” OR “science for policy” OR “policy engagement”)	5	individual RIS export only
Overton	21/05/2024	(“Early career” OR “mid career” OR young OR junior) AND (researcher~ OR academic~ OR scholar~) AND (“policy advice” OR “policy mak~” OR “science-policy” OR “policy-science” OR “science for policy” OR “policy engagement”)	13
Scopus	01/02/2023	(“Early career” OR “mid career” OR young OR junior) W/2 (researcher* OR academic* OR scholar*) AND (“policy advice” OR “policy mak*” OR “science-policy” OR “policy-science” OR “science for policy” OR “policy engagement”) AND (survey* OR interview* OR reward* OR recogni* OR engage*)	54
Scopus	21/05/2024	(“Early career” OR “mid career” OR young OR junior) W/2 (researcher* OR academic* OR scholar*) AND (“policy advice” OR “policy mak*” OR “science-policy” OR “policy-science” OR “science for policy” OR “policy engagement”) AND (survey* OR interview* OR reward* OR recogni* OR engage* OR barrier* OR hurdle*); (“Early career” OR “mid career” OR young OR junior) W/2 (researcher* OR academic* OR scholar*) AND (“policy advice” OR “policy mak*” OR “science-policy” OR “policy-science” OR “science for policy” OR “policy engagement”) AND (skill* OR training OR fellowship* OR internship* OR education OR opportunit* OR mentor* OR course* OR induction* OR development OR recognition OR “capacity building” OR reward* OR incentive* OR network* OR collaboration* OR connection* OR partnership*)	41
Social Policy and Practice (Ovid)	02/02/2023	As Embase	0
Web of Science	01/02/2023	(“Early career” OR “mid career” OR young OR junior) NEAR/2 (researcher* OR academic* OR scholar*) AND “policy advice” OR “policy mak*” OR “science-policy” OR “policy-science” OR “science for policy” OR “policy engagement” AND survey* OR interview* OR reward* OR recogni* OR engage*	53
Web of Science	21/05/2024	(“Early career” OR “mid career” OR young OR junior) NEAR/2 (researcher* OR academic* OR scholar*) AND (“policy advice” OR “policy mak*” OR “science-policy” OR “policy-science” OR “science for policy” OR “policy engagement”) AND (survey* OR interview* OR reward* OR recogni* OR engage* OR barrier* OR hurdle*); (“Early career” OR “mid career” OR young OR junior) NEAR/2 (researcher* OR academic* OR scholar*) AND (“policy advice” OR “policy mak*” OR “science-policy” OR “policy-science” OR “science for policy” OR “policy engagement”) AND (skill* OR training OR fellowship* OR internship* OR education OR opportunit* OR mentor* OR course* OR induction* OR development OR recognition OR “capacity building” OR reward* OR incentive* OR network* OR collaboration* OR connection* OR partnership*)	21
Supplementary searching	02/02/2023		10	YASAS report
Supplementary searching	22/05/2024		4	citation searching
Deduplicated			179
Included			50

Structured survey

Welcome and thank you for helping us to strengthen the representation of EMCRs (Early- and Mid-Career Researchers) in high- level science and policy advice to the European Union!

We want to hear what has been your experience in your efforts to engage in science and evidence for policy. Your will help us identify the challenges that we need to tackle. We will publish a report on the results, and we will incorporate the findings into our Strategy. By sharing your experience, you’ll contribute to shaping a more inclusive, diverse and impactful science-policy EU landscape. Thank you! > This survey will take 15 min.

Who are “we” and what do we do? The Scientific Advice Mechanism provides independent scientific evidence and policy recommendations to the European institutions by request of the College of Commissioners. We consist of three parts: the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors, SAPEA, and the SAM secretariat.

SAPEA is a consortium of European academy networks representing around 110 academies from across Europe. Its role in the SAM is to provide independent, high- quality reviews of the evidence to inform the policy recommendations made by the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors. We at SAPEA are committed to include more EMCRs in our evidence-gathering activities though our dedicated network of Young Academies for Scientific Advice Structure (YASAS) - although we welcome and seek experts from outside academies, and or any other networks!

Part 1: About you

Hi, nice to meet you by the way! :)

• What is your age range?

• under 25

• 25–34

• 35–44

• 45–50

• 50+

• Gender: How do you identify?

• Female

• Male

• Non-binary

• Prefer not to say

• Please indicate your highest degree.

• Please add the year (YYYY) when you received the highest degree.

• You identify yourself as an:

• Early-career researcher

• Mid-career researcher

• Senior career researcher

• Young professional

• Senior professional

• Other (please specify)

• How is your current position funded? We would like to understand how this could affect your time flexibility to engage in activities outside your research.

• I have a permanent contract (eg. Tenured research, professorship, permanent position in an institute)

• I have a long-term contract (eg. a 5 year project grant as Principal Investigator)

• I have a short-term contract (eg. 2 year postdoc contract, consultant)

• I am on a scholarship Other (please specify)

• Have you ever worked outside academia? (select all that apply)

• Yes, private sector

• Yes, government sector

• Yes, third sector (eg. non-profit organisation)

• No

• Other (please specify)

• Are you a member of an Academy or Learned Society? (eg. a young academy, Science and Letters Societies, etc).

• Yes

• No

• I was before, but not anymore

If yes, name of Academy or Society:

• In which country do you work?

• What is your primary field of research?

Part 2: Skills and attitudes

Wait, what do we mean by “science for policy”? Scientists can inform policymakers by providing scientific evidence (eg. scientific publications), or by providing science-based advice (eg. acting as a science advisor, participating in an expert working group or advisory board, contributing to a policy brief) “in an impartial, reliable, and transparent way” (adapted from SAM).

• What is an example of a science-for-policy activity that you have done or heard of?

• Have you ever received formal training to deliver science evidence and/or advice for policy? Select: Yes / No

• If yes, please indicate the type of activity you were involved in:

• University courses

• Online course (eg. educational online platforms)

• Researchers/professionals networks events for career-building (eg. Marie Curie Alumni Association events)

• Governmental agency training/course

• Non-governmental agency (NGO) training/course EU Commission training/course

• Other (please specify)

• Have you ever engaged in informal/self-learning methods to gain expertise in science-for- policy?

• If yes, please, please indicate if it included:

• Literature (books)

• Online content (videos, blogs, webinars)

• Science-for-policy conferences (events joining participants from academia and policy sector, eg. European Science Open Forum, ESOF)

• Other (please specify)

• If you engaged in science-for-policy activities or training events, did you receive recognition for taking part in the activity?

• I received credits (as part of my Masters/PhD degree)

• I was encouraged to take part in the event as part of my work hours I received funding to join the event (eg for travel/course fee)

• I was encouraged to take part in the event by my team leader/team as part of my career development I didn’t notice any impact on my daily work.

• I received a penalty (I was asked to mark the day as off-work/vacation, I was asked to work extra hours to make up lost time, etc).

• Other form of recognition (please specify)

• We had a look at your past experiences. Now let’s hear your opinion on the situation. (Select Yes/ No)

• I can think of at least 1 example where science evidence has been used by policymakers

• I can think of at least 1 channel/institution that I can approach to contribute to science for policy

• I receive enough support from my host institute/workplace to carry out activities in scienceadvice for policy (eg. training opportunities)

• The training I have received makes me feel competent to advice on or communicate science to policymakers

• I am interested in getting involved with science for policy

• Let’s see what area needs improvement! Please select the following statements that are true for you:

• I have enough time to engage in science-for-policy activities

• I understand what policymakers need

• Policymakers have the training to understand my research findings

• My workplace offers recognition or incentives for me to engage in these activities

• Policymakers recognize and acknowledge my contribution as a scientist

• I feel capable in making research findings relevant to policy

• I feel confident to act as an expert in my scientific field

• I am aware of possible science advice opportunities I could contribute to

• Unfortunately, I feel engagement in these activities is detrimental to my scientific career progression

• Other (please specify)

• What would help you better engage in science for policy activities? Please rank them in order of importance to you (top = most important)

• Good job security

• To be able to credit this work in benefit of my career development (eg. in assesment criteria for grants or career rankings)

• Access to training to gain relevant skills

• To have a better understanding of how my research is relevant to a policymaker

• To have a better understanding of how policymaking works

• To have a better understanding of the current national/EU/international policy topics

• To receive support or encouragement from my peers

• To receive support or encouragement from my supervisor/boss

• To include this activity as part of my job description (eg. included as % of working hours)

• To have concrete examples of how my field of research has contributed to informing policy

Part 3: High-level science for policy

Note: in this survey, we refer to ‘high-level science-for-policy’ as activities where you contribute evidence to policymakers at the highest levels of government (national advisory groups, SAPEA, IPCC, advisory groups of the EC, OECD, WHO, UN, etc).

• Have you ever been involved in providing high-level science advice for policy?

• If yes, please indicate all types of activities you were involved in:

• Expert panel

• Working Group

• Expert Consultation

• High-level think tank

• Advisory group

• SAPEA Working Group or SAPEA workshops

• Contributing author to high-level science for policy report

• Would you consider engaging in high-level science for policy activities again?

• Yes, I would! (of course, depending on the activity and available time)

• No, I would not like to engage again

• If you answered ‘yes’, why would you consider engaging in these activities again?

• I enjoyed the experience

• It is good for my career development

• I am considering this as a career change

• I expand my network

• I see it as my responsibility as a scientist

• It contributes to my knowledge

• It gives me a sense of purpose

• No - I would not like to engage again

Equality, Diversity and Inclusivity of EMCR voices in science for policy

• How successful were your contributions or perspectives implemented in the final science-for- policy deliverable?

• My contributions were successfully included in the final product

• My contributions were not included in the final product

• I don’t know

• Do you feel you or your contributions were perceived differently or discriminated against for any of the following reasons:

Select: It had a positive influence on my contribution / It had a negative influence on my contribution. / No effect /Not applicable to me.

• my career stage (eg. as an early career, as a senior scientist)

• my gender

• my sexual orientation

• my ethnic background

• my religion

• my country of origin

• being a parent

• my research field

• my special needs

• Have you faced any other hurdles? If so, what were they and how did you overcome them?

Let’s try a role-playing scenario! You have been invited to join a SAPEA Working Group to prepare an Evidence Review Report (ERR) in your field of expertise, as requested by the European Commission. You are one of the 10 high-level experts selected from across Europe and amongst your field to join the working group. You will have 3 months to meet (mostly online), gather scientific evidence, consider literature reviews, attend expert workshops to consult with other experts, and contribute to the writing of the ERR. The ERR will be peer-reviewed and you will contribute to responding to the comments for the final version of the ERR. Following its publication, you are invited by SAPEA to join a expert panel discussion as an outreach event.

• How competent would you feel to accept the invitation to the Working Group?

• I don’t feel competent to accept at this moment

• Unsure

• I feel competent to accept this invitation

• How interested would you be to accept the invitation to join?

Not very interested / Unsure / Very interested

• What reasons would motivate you to join the Working Group?

• It would bring me prestige

• It’s important to engage in science for impact activities

• I am interested in networking (eg. with the WG, during outreach events)

• I want to gain more experience specifically in science for policy

• I want to engage with the European Commission

• I want to build up my CV

• Other (please specify)

• Would you feel competent to engage in the following activities if you joined the SAPEA WG:

• to find, evaluate and gather scientific evidence

• to contribute to the discussion as part of a multidisciplinary working group

• to synthesis scientific evidence for a policy audience

• to contribute to writing the evidence-review-report

• to provide policy options based on scientific evidence

• to respond to the peer-review process to engage in the expert panel discussion

• Thank you for participating in this survey! We value your time and appreciate your input! If you would like leave a comment, this space is yours:

• psst… where did you hear about this survey? Thank you <3

Thank you! The analysis of the survey will be published by the end of 2024 as a report on the incentives and hurdles faced by EMCRs in engaging with science-for-policy. If you have any questions or suggestions, please get in touch with us at SAPEA!