Speech by BSPC President Carola Veit at the Baltic Sea Science Congress 2017

Speech and Comment by Mrs Carola VeitPresident of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference (BSPC) and President of the Hamburg Parliamentat the Baltic Sea Science Congress 2017Session:Science meets Policy:Role of evidence-based science in decision-makingHanse Messe Rostock, 15 June 2017, 16-17.30Check against deliveryDear Professor Bathmann,Dear Ms Johansson,Ladies and gentlemen,on behalf of the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference, let me thank you for inviting me to address the Baltic Sea Science Congress here in Rostock and to take part in this session (seminar) of the Congress, where science meets policy.I was asked to give a comment on the keynote and the key question of this session: ‘What is the role of evidence-based science in current and future decision-making’ from the perspective of parliaments and parliamentary work.Before I go into detail on this topic and the raised question, let me make a few remarks about the Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference:The Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference was founded in 1991 with the primary goal of creating a platform for open parliamentary dialogue to establish the Baltic Sea as a sea of freedom and cooperation.While the earlier conferences primarily dealt with topics such as the democratic stabilisation of the region and improving the critical environmental situation in the Baltic Sea, in the meantime, many other issues were also discussed, such as:maritime policy and economy; green growth; climate change; education; minorities; NGO’s; labour market and social welfare; culture; healthcare; and sustainable tourism.For example: The 24th annual conference of the BSPC took place two years ago here in Rostock on the topic of innovation in social and healthcare.We adopted a very far-reaching and detailed resolution about measures in the healthcare sector. These results were based on a two year’s BSPC Working Group as well as on the evidence-based scientific results in this area after many expert hearings.You can say, this was one of many best practice examples, where evidence-based science was the foundation of parliamentary decision-making.The BSPC gathers parliamentarians from 22 parliaments and 5 parliamentary organizations around the Baltic Sea, including Russia and Norway, and thus constitutes a unique and comprehensive political platform for cooperation among all the EU and non-EU countries of the Baltic Sea Region on an equal footing. We agree upon comprehensive resolutions and ask for concrete commitments from our governments.Ladies and gentlemen,During the current Hamburg Presidency, one of the priority issues is Science and Research. This is of course connected to the special engagement of Hamburg’s with the Baltic Science Network and DESY/TRAM. But we will also put a focus on the issue that is pointed out here and today.So that also means that, as part of this year’s BSPC Conference, we will not just realize what is happening at the moment, which is science meeting policy. With this focus, we are far exceeding this approach and supporting you as scientists of the Baltic area.In our resolution from this year, we will probably support you for example by demanding from our governmentsto intensify scientific cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region qualitatively and quantitatively;to further improve the conditions of the Baltic Sea Region in global scientific competition;to strengthen citizen awareness of education and science as important innovation resources; or tosupport BONUS IIAnd now I would like to share some thoughts on the question of the role of evidence-based science as part of parliamentarian decision-making processes, as well as some examples:Evidence-based science does not only play a crucial role in current decision-making, but has played a role both in politics as in political science for a long time.Machiavelli already ascribed a leading role to experts when he put it as follows: ‘A smart prince has to... select bright people, permit these exclusively to tell him the truth but only with regard to what he asks of them; yet he has to ask them about everything, listen to their opinion, and subsequently make a decision.’ (From Nicolo Machiavelli, The Prince).Since the last decades of the past century, this topic has played a significant role in the political science discussions of the Federal Republic of Germany and far beyond, concerning aspects such as regulatory and technology impact assessment. A particular focus was regularly placed on the areas of the environment and technology.A little over a year ago, the German Bundestag celebrated 25 years of technology impact assessment in the respective bodies of the German Bundestag and instituted an office on technology impact assessment of its own for political consulting. In certain areas, it is considered indispensable to access current scientific research results even though science cannot always provide precise predictions.In Germany, as early as the 1970s, there had been an expert council for environmental questions condensing the respective scientific results into annual reports for policymakers and providing early recommendations for action.It finally took more than a decade to educate Germans to separate their rubbish, but obviously this is something nobody would do without seeing any sense in it – so it would have never been able to implement it without a strong scientific argumentation about the necessity, without strong evidence-based facts and new technologies that first persuaded politicians and then a whole country.So: Dealing with any kind of topic is simply not possible without a common understanding about basic facts.And policy does undoubtedly rely on scientific findings. But sometimes it also doesn’t – and for good reasons. I cited Machiavelli – there is one word in his quote that deserves special care: “Truth”. In such a short statement, the word truth appears as if there was some kind of empirical reality – and only that one. Yes, policy is influenced by science, but: we all know that science is influenced by interests, in the same vein that policy is influenced by interests.Just a very simple example:One of the contentious issues for parliaments is the ratio of childcare: How much personnel and money does it take to adequately take care of and educate children in kindergarten?A macro economist, who asks for the effectiveness of the measure – maybe in comparison with other projects concerning non-endless budgets – will give you a very different answer from someone who studied a social or education science.Oftentimes, if the parliamentary groups appoint scientists or experts to argue a point and collect information, the answers provided will be no different than those provided by the parliamentarians themselves. So, if it is sometimes suggested that policy would become so much better if it was carried out by scientists... I just don’t believe that.The truth is, there is not one truth – there are many. And it is the job of politicians to bring these truths together, find the biggest common denominator, also experiment!And I’m sorry I can’t spare you this side note: Science itself also operates in trial-and-error mode often enough. It was the idea of the scientific community to introduce nuclear energy. By now we’ve gathered enough information to see the pitfalls, but progress will most likely always take place because of trial and error. Sometimes we succeed and sometimes we fail. But we have to keep experimenting.In pluralistic societies, politics means the encounter of diverse interests and the orientation along majorities as part of political decision-making processes, to find compromises. Could a parliament, only consisting of scientists, operate otherwise? They also would have to convey between several possibilities. Not to mention the financial restrictions, Ladies and gentlemen.Take the deepening of the Elbe River in Hamburg, for instance, in order to allow big container vessels to reach our port. We have had hearing after hearing, involving countless scientists and experts, in order to judge whether or not this would have a significant negative impact on the environment. Of course, every scientist had a different opinion. Ultimately, as is so often the case in Germany, the issue was brought before the courts, also at the EU level, where it is pending a decision – for years now.So: Truth isn’t an empiric reality “out there” – truth means trying – to the best of our knowledge and means of scientific inquiry – coming as close to the truth as we can.Ladies and gentlemen,To me, a very helpful tool to assess complex future circumstances has been the institution of committees of enquiry. Scientists and politicians come together on an equal footing. For one, policy gets informed by scientific insight. Another important advantage is that scientists also develop an understanding for politics, where maximum demands sometimes have to be surrendered in favour of a simple majority, in order to get anything done in the first place.But “Parliamentary instruments”, such as committees of enquiry, expert councils, and expert hearings, are of course only helpful in the parliamentary arena if the best scientists make themselves available to policy with their results and if they are willing to introduce their scientific results in respective procedures and decision-making processes – and, to mention it again, the crucial reality of competing issues on the budget panel...In my consideration, we are faced with a situation where – thankfully – there is a dialogue between science and policy. However, all-too-often we have experts from one side talk to experts from the other side. And all-too-often the experts on the political side sit in some subordinate administrative unit. Great work is done there, to make this clear. But it also takes a great effort, time and also luck for the developed insights to work their way up to the top political level, where decisions are ultimately made.So, in that sense: Yes, dialogue between policy and science does take place, but it is conducted mostly at the executive level.In order to more strongly involve evidence-based science in political decision-making processes, not only is it necessary for policy to approach science but also for science to bring results to policy and to take efforts to get involved in the political decision-making processes.In that regard, I would like to appeal to you to make yourselves and your scientific results available to politics and the parliamentary decision-makers for a close cooperation in order to affect the best possible decisions on the foundation of evidence-based science. It is very useful if a systematic method is developed and applied, which helps to identify wrong scientific insights also for political decision-making processes.How about we make a start today and continue this dialogue at the 26th Baltic Sea Parliamentary Conference on 4/5 September in Hamburg during our Session on Science and Research.I invite the Baltic Sea Science Congress to send one or two more speakers to our conference in Hamburg to talk about the important nexus between policy and science, and the main issues of this week-long conference. Prof. Dr. Ulrich Bathmann was already so kind to accept our invitation and we would welcome more input from this forum.Thank you for your attention.