Scientists urged to turn research into clear, actionable messages for policymakers

Experts say scientific evidence alone is not enough to influence public policy, calling for researchers to communicate findings in simple language, engage communities early and respond to misinformation respectfully.

Scientists and regulators across Africa have been urged to rethink how they communicate research, with experts warning that even strong scientific evidence can fail to influence policy when it is poorly translated for decision-makers and the public.

The call emerged during the fifth webinar in the Truth Under the Microscope series, titled “Evidence to Influence: Communicating Science for Policy Impact.”

The webinar is a collaboration involving the African Genetic Biocontrol Consortium, BioTrust Institute and the Elizabeth R. Griffin Program at Johns Hopkins University.

Opening the session, African Genetic Biocontrol Consortium CEO Rosalia Omungo said the webinar sought to move the conversation from generating evidence to ensuring that research can actually contribute to policy dialogue, decision-making and programme action.

A central message was that researchers should stop assuming that evidence speaks for itself.

Policy influence, Omungo said, is a journey rather than a one-off event. Researchers therefore need to frame evidence according to the needs of different audiences, including policymakers, regulators, journalists and other stakeholders. Clear language, appropriate timing and continued engagement can determine whether research reaches the people capable of acting on it.

‘Correct misinformation respectfully’

Dr Agnes Asagbra used Nigeria's experience with TELA maize to illustrate how scientific evidence moves through research, regulation, stakeholder engagement and ultimately policy.

She argued that effective policy communication should begin with three basic questions: What is the issue? What does the evidence show? What action should follow?

For policymakers, she recommended concise messages written in plain language rather than scientific jargon. Researchers should also openly communicate uncertainty, distinguish evidence from expectations, explain safeguards and remain available for follow-up questions.

Asagbra placed particular emphasis on how institutions respond to misinformation.

Rather than dismissing or attacking people who raise concerns about biotechnology, communicators should listen to their perspectives, verify the claims being made and respond with evidence.

“We need trusted voices and also we need to correct misinformation respectfully,” she said, warning against talking down to people who have encountered false or misleading information.

She said misinformation should first be checked against the original source, location, evidence and context. Communicators should also distinguish deliberate manipulation from people who have unintentionally shared inaccurate information.

Legitimate concerns should be acknowledged while false claims are corrected “without shaming sharers.”

Her proposed formula for responding to public concerns was equally straightforward: acknowledge the concern, state the verified fact, explain the evidence and its limitations, provide a trusted source and invite further questions.

Scientists told to start with the decision, not the data

Dr Abraham Isah, who spoke on translating research and technical evidence into policy, said scientists need to understand that policymakers operate differently from researchers.

He argued that lengthy datasets and highly technical scientific presentations may be valuable within academia but are often unsuitable for busy decision-makers.

Isah's presentation focused on translating complex research into formats such as visuals and policy briefs that quickly communicate what the evidence means and what decision needs to be made. He told participants that Africa needs stronger links between research, science and policy.

The approach places the policy decision at the centre rather than beginning with the volume of data a scientist has produced.

The broader implication for researchers was that publishing findings should not be considered the end of the process. Evidence must be translated into a form that policymakers can understand, evaluate and use.

Zambia case highlights importance of local evidence

Sandra Lombe's presentation brought the discussion into Zambia's biosafety decision-making environment, using TELA maize to examine how evidence should move through a national regulatory system.

She stressed that evidence from another country can inform a regulatory assessment but should not automatically determine the outcome in another jurisdiction.

Nigeria's experience, for example, could provide Zambia with useful regional evidence and regulatory lessons, but Zambia would still need to assess the technology against its own laws, environmental conditions, institutional capacity and public priorities.

Lombe recommended that decision-makers undertake an independent and transparent assessment of each application rather than treating foreign approval as a substitute for national assessment.

Local factors such as pest pressure, drought, agronomic performance and seed systems should be examined. Where approval is granted, she said, authorities should establish enforceable requirements covering stewardship, seed quality, monitoring, public reporting and corrective action.

She also advocated publishing plain-language, non-confidential assessment summaries explaining the evidence, uncertainties, public comments, reasoning behind decisions and any conditions attached to an approval.

Communication, she argued, should not stop when regulators announce their decision.

Fact sheets, radio programmes, community dialogue and, where appropriate, local languages can help explain complex regulatory decisions to wider audiences. Messages should be tailored to the people receiving them, while monitoring and communication should continue after approval.

Trust emerges as critical link between science and policy

Across the presentations, a recurring theme was that credible science is only one part of effective evidence-based policymaking.

Trust, transparency, timing, relationships and the ability to explain uncertainty are equally important.

The experts advocated communication systems that involve scientists, regulators, farmers, journalists, consumer groups and other stakeholders rather than relying on institutions to communicate only after a decision has already been reached.

For contested technologies, Lombe said public concerns and competing evidence should be communicated neutrally, respectfully and transparently, while monitoring and follow-up should allow emerging evidence to improve future decisions.

The webinar's conclusion returned to the distinction between simply producing research and creating influence.

Organisers said participants should leave better able to translate complex scientific findings into clear and actionable policy messages, build trust, communicate uncertainty and engage decision-makers effectively.

Ultimately, the message from the fifth webinar was that evidence has its greatest impact when scientists can explain not only what the research found, but why it matters, to whom it matters and what should happen next.