For most PhD candidates, years of research culminate in defending their thesis in front of a panel of experts. But just five months after completing her PhD, Lisa-Maria Tanase found herself presenting her work to the UK parliament. Her research had already been reported on by The Guardian and cited in parliamentary proceedings, eventually leading to a personal invitation to speak in parliament.
To many academics, this might sound like a dream scenario: bringing their research out of the lab and making a real impact on society. But engaging with policy can feel deeply intimidating. After all, a PhD trains you to write papers and speak at conferences, not talk to civil servants or navigate Westminster. So how did Dr Tanase bridge this gap so early in her career?
The answer lies in the Centre for Science and Policy (CSaP), an organisation dedicated to connecting researchers with decision-makers. I sat down with Kavya Neeba, Policy Engagement Network Coordinator, to discover how CSaP achieves this.
As Kavya’s job title suggests, CSaP deals in networks. Its mission is to promote evidence-based policymaking by connecting the academic community of Cambridge to leading decision-makers in the UK and around the world. Some of its programmes are aimed at policymakers, including fellowships that involve one-to-one chats and workshops where they can discuss specific policy challenges with researchers. Others focus on helping researchers develop the skills required to become policy advisors. “Engaging with policy requires a different skillset than being an academic,” Kavya explained. For researchers like Dr Tanase, CSaP’s programmes, contacts, and seed funding opportunities provide an entry point into the world of policy.
“Political pressures and external factors affect what the final policy looks like. The final policy is not just made on good science alone”
Importantly, Kavya stressed that CSaP does not only work with STEM disciplines. Policy problems are rarely purely technical, so the centre regularly collaborates with researchers in the humanities, arts, and social sciences as well. “We could have been called the ‘Centre for Research and Policy’,” she quipped, “but then the acronym would have been ‘CRaP’!”
Bringing together such a wide range of expertise has helped CSaP attract strong interest from both sides of the science-policy interface. Every year, their fellowships for policymakers receive large numbers of applications from the civil service, international organisations, NGOs, and charities. Researchers are equally enthusiastic to get involved. Many are intrinsically motivated by the desire to create a tangible impact through their work, though there are practical incentives as well, from networking opportunities to making their research more persuasive in grant applications.
Measuring whether these engagements genuinely influence policy, however, is far less straightforward. When I pressed Kavya on effectiveness, she was careful to emphasise that CSaP operates through a ‘policy-first’ rather than a ‘research-push’ model. They start by finding out what questions policymakers are grappling with, then connect them with academics to answer these questions. Crucially, the organisation remains non-partisan. “CSaP presents all the evidence and knowledge we have. It’s the responsibility of elected representatives to make use of this knowledge,” she explained.
“The final policy is not just made on good science alone”
Another complication is that policymaking is a long and rarely linear process. Productive conversations between researchers and policymakers may take years to materialise into visible policy changes, if they do at all. “There are obviously political pressures and a whole lot of external factors that affect what the final policy looks like,” Kavya explained. So are there cases where good science is simply ignored? She paused before answering carefully: “I wouldn’t say so, but the final policy is not just made on good science alone.”
As a result, assessing CSaP’s impact relies heavily on qualitative feedback from participants in their programmes. Kavya suggested that their impact is perhaps clearest in the case studies published on their website. In one, the Director General of the Schools Group, Department of Education, reflected on a session with psychiatry and neuroinformatics experts about mental health policy. In another, the Director of Environmental Sustainability at National Highways described his takeaways from a workshop on nature networks. Kavya recalled a civil servant telling her that a session had “changed the way I thought about this problem – I took it back to my team and it really affected our discussions.” Whether this eventually translates into concrete policy changes is a far more complex question to answer, but it is clear that policymakers gain useful insights from engaging with CSaP.
“The most difficult part of the job is getting policymakers and academics to speak the same language”
The most difficult part of the job is getting people to speak the same language. Policymakers think in terms of priorities, practical considerations, and political pressures; academics communicate through lots of technical jargon. “How do you help policymakers ask the right questions, and how do you help researchers translate their research into concise terms?” Kavya mused. This was not a question CSaP had a solution to, but an ongoing effort. She recalled one researcher reflecting on their secondment to a policy organisation: “If a policymaker asks a question, simplify your answer, then simplify it twice more.”
New challenges have emerged in recent years too. With increasing polarisation and misinformation, trusted spaces for discussion have become sparse, and Kavya believes this makes her work even more important. She hopes CSaP can serve as a place where opposing viewpoints can work out their differences, using scientific evidence as a common ground. Yet, she stressed that perhaps the most important audience is not the scientists and policymakers themselves, but the public. “How well are you communicating the evidence, the data, and the rationale behind the policy to the public, who are on the receiving end of it?” As trust in institutions declines, governments must become more transparent about the evidence informing their decisions.
As our conversation shifted to her view of the future, Kavya was equal parts hopeful and cautious about the rise of AI. While it can make gathering evidence much easier, it risks amplifying incorrect or misleading information. She noted that the Universities Policy Engagement Network (UPEN) was already developing guidelines on the use of AI in academic policy engagement. Still, she was convinced that technology would not replace the human dimension of policy work. “I see AI as a tool to ease your workflow. Maybe to find the right people to connect with, but never to do the actual connecting.”
What, then, is needed from people on both sides of the science-policy interface? Kavya hopes that policymakers will get more opportunities to take time out from their work and stay informed about what’s happening in science. She also wants to dispel the myth that policy engagement is only for established academics. “Start early, remain curious, and don’t stop after one opportunity or one engagement,” she urged. Getting involved in the policy space relies on building relationships and networks, which takes time. Academics can also start to engage with policy in other ways: writing for policy publications, responding to the government’s open calls for evidence, or paying attention to policy priorities when planning their research.
Her concluding message was simple: “There isn’t one particular pathway to engage with policy. It can take many forms, and it’s not a linear process.” In any case, organisations like CSaP exist to make policy engagement feel a little less inaccessible. For researchers aspiring to see their work shape society, the first step is simply to start the conversation.
