Bringing Policymakers to Science Through Communication: A Perspective From Latin America

Abstract

Scientific knowledge should be shared beyond academic circles in order to promote science in policymaking. Science communication increases the understanding of how the natural world works and the capacity to make informed decisions. However, not every researcher has the ability to master the art of communicating, and even less in a clear, concise, and easy to understand language that society representatives appreciate. Within the huge and extraordinarily diverse Latin American region, science communication has been going on for at least 200 years, when the first science stories appeared in the newspapers, as well as the first science museums and botanical gardens were founded. Nevertheless, resources are limited, and notably time, which researchers spend mostly in mentoring, ensuring funding, publication of their results and laboratory work, while science journalists are an endangered species. This perspective article aims at providing some recommendations to build bridges between science and decision-making parties through communication, by exploring how Latin American diplomats and policymakers engage with scientific knowledge.

The needed link between open science and science diplomacy—A Latin American perspective

“…While the LATAM region lacks a common approach to science diplomacy, its diverse nature can be observed through three main facets: (1) bilateral and multilateral collaboration, involving diplomatic interactions and collaborations between two or more countries on STI issues (Frech et al, 2018 ; López-Vergès et al, 2021 ); (2) policy and decision-making, focusing on how scientific evidence, expertise, and advice contribute to shaping policies, regulations, and agreements (Garton et al, 2021 ; Soler, 2021 ); and (3) public engagement and international outreach, emphasizing the importance of science communication, dissemination of scientific results, public outreach, and government engagement with both policy and non-policy actors (Hajdu and Simoneau, 2020 ; Pulido-Salgado and Castaneda Mena, 2021 ; Massarani and de Oliveira, 2022 ; Echeverría-King et al, 2024 ). These facets can be linked to the “access,” “promotion,” and “influence” framework proposed by Flink and Schreiterer ( 2010 ).…”

Engaging Early‐Career Scientists in Global Policy‐Making

“…[45] This has been followed by initiatives in Australia, Canada, India, Israel, and the UK. Moreover, similar initiatives to build bridges between science and policy have emerged in Latin American countries, [46,47] such as through the Inter-American Institute for Global Change Research (IAI), where nations of the American continent participate in a Science, Technology, Policy (STeP) Fellowship Program. [48] This kind of program has taken on an increasingly vital role in both developed and developing countries.…”

Beyond boundaries: The present and future of 4E cognitive science in interdisciplinary academia, industry, and everyday life

“…For instance, 4E research on agent-environment interactions, tool incorporation, and consciousness may inform policy decisions on mental health, disability rights, environmental protections, and Artificial Intelligence (AI) ethics. We must refine and continue to utilize channels and means of communication with policymakers such that new insights about human behavior and thought, formulated by 4E researchers, may be communicated and implemented into policymaking efficiently and timely (Pulido-Salgado & Castaneda Mena, 2021).…”