Scientific Evidence And Public Policy

68% of Europeans believe scientists should intervene in political debates to ensure decisions are evidence-based (Eurobarometer 557). Yet, too often, the bridge between research results and policymaking remains underused. The European Research Executive Agency (REA) Agency has published a kit for EU-funded projects on how to share scientific evidence with policymakers. Its logic is simple but powerful: if research is publicly funded, it should not only advance knowledge but also inform policy choices. What this means The document outlines three principles for achieving policy impact: • Understand the policy context – track priorities, identify the right timing, and make results relevant. • Join forces with stakeholders – academics, industry, civil society, and other EU projects. • Plan for impact from the start – define audiences, key messages, and the right channels. It also lists the most effective formats to reach policymakers: policy briefs, consultations, workshops, and direct reporting. Interestingly, it stresses that researchers’ own social media accounts can also play a role in authenticity and engagement. Why this is interesting and for whom • For researchers: the kit provides 10 concrete steps and links to EU tools such as CORDIS, Horizon Dashboard, and the Horizon Results Platform, turning evidence into actionable insights. • For policymakers: it offers a structured way to receive scientific input in real time, aligned with the EU policy cycle. • For citizens: it strengthens the expectation that public policies are backed by evidence, not just political negotiation. The message is clear: EU-funded research is not complete until its results have reached the people shaping Europe’s future laws and strategies.

Drug policy can break or make a person.  It can kill — or it can save a life.  It can stigmatize and isolate—or it can help heal connections with others.    For decades, punitive policies have failed to reduce drug use, trafficking, or harm. Instead, the war on drugs has reinforced cycles of exclusion and driven unnecessary deaths, mass incarceration, homelessness, and environmental harm.    It is clear: punishment does not heal.    Human connection and evidence-based approaches – not punishment – are what transform lives, strengthen social bonds, and create healthier, more resilient communities.    At today’s Brandenburg Forum, I called for six urgent actions to chart a new course: 1️⃣ Integrate the International Guidelines on Human Rights and Drug Policy into national laws 2️⃣ Invest in harm reduction 3️⃣ Decriminalise drug use while supporting social reintegration 4️⃣ Abolish the death penalty for drug-related offences 5️⃣ Regulate responsibly to dismantle illicit markets, reduce violence, and protect the environment 6️⃣ Include affected communities in shaping drug policies   We must replace the era of punishment & fear—with one rooted in support, health & human rights. https://lnkd.in/e9uDjDHK

Landfill Panic vs System Reality: What Wind & Solar Actually Displace Claims about wind turbines and solar panels filling landfills are circulating again, framed as a rediscovered flaw in clean energy. The argument is familiar. Wind blades are large, solar panels contain glass and metals, and at the end of their lives these materials must be disposed of. The implied conclusion is that wind and solar merely trade one environmental problem for another. Full article linked in comments. This framing persists because landfill waste is visible and intuitive. A pile of blades or panels is easy to photograph and share. Atmospheric pollution is invisible, diffuse, and harder to reason about. Visibility is mistaken for scale. The landfill critique is fundamentally a claim about mass. Accepting that metric for the sake of analysis, the correct comparison is mass per MWh. Modern wind and solar systems produce very small amounts of annualized solid waste per MWh, even under worst case assumptions where all materials end up in landfills. Wind turbine blades, foundations, and balance of plant materials are inert, contained, and appear at end of life after decades of operation. Solar panels and mounting systems behave similarly. These are episodic waste streams managed within engineered systems. Coal and natural gas operate differently. They produce waste continuously. Coal generation emits roughly 900 to 1,000 kg of CO2 per MWh, along with nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and fine particulates. Natural gas emits less CO2 from combustion, but when upstream methane leakage and methane slip are included, lifecycle emissions rise to roughly 380 to 690 kg CO2e per MWh. Using the same mass metric critics invoke, coal releases thousands of times more mass per MWh into the environment than wind or solar. Even on those terms, fossil fuels dominate. Mass is still the wrong metric for harm. Environmental impact depends on dispersion, toxicity, and persistence. A kilogram of inert material in a lined landfill does not behave like a kilogram of air pollution dispersed across cities and ecosystems. CO2 accumulates for centuries. Fine particulates drive real health impacts at low concentrations. Displacement is the missing variable. Wind and solar do not exist in isolation. Every MWh they generate displaces a MWh from coal or gas on the grid margin. Ignoring displacement means ignoring how electricity systems work. It is also important to update the record. Earlier analyses, including my own, were based on smaller turbines, lower capacity factors, heavier materials per unit of output, and shorter assumed lifetimes. Wind and solar have improved materially. Efficiency is higher. Lifetimes are longer. Material intensity per MWh is lower. On a per MWh basis, the waste from wind and solar is small, contained, and manageable. The pollution they displace is not.

Impact evaluation is a crucial tool for understanding the effectiveness of development programs, offering insights into how interventions influence their intended beneficiaries. The Handbook on Impact Evaluation: Quantitative Methods and Practices, authored by Shahidur R. Khandker, Gayatri B. Koolwal, and Hussain A. Samad, presents a comprehensive approach to designing and conducting rigorous evaluations in complex environments. With its emphasis on quantitative methods, this guide serves as a vital resource for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners striving to assess and enhance the impact of programs aimed at reducing poverty and fostering development. The handbook delves into a variety of techniques, including randomized controlled trials, propensity score matching, double-difference methods, and regression discontinuity designs, each tailored to address specific evaluation challenges. It bridges theory and practice, offering case studies and practical examples from global programs, such as conditional cash transfers in Mexico and rural electrification in Nepal. By integrating both ex-ante and ex-post evaluation methods, it equips evaluators to not only measure program outcomes but also anticipate potential impacts in diverse settings. This resource transcends technical guidance, emphasizing the strategic value of impact evaluation in informing evidence-based policy decisions and improving resource allocation. Whether for evaluating microcredit programs, infrastructure projects, or social initiatives, the methodologies outlined provide a robust framework for generating actionable insights that can drive sustainable and equitable development worldwide.

Evidence in public health isn’t a single brick, it’s a dry stone wall. Ogilvie et al. used this metaphor to describe how different pieces of evidence fit together to form something strong, flexible, and grounded in the real world. Instead of treating health problems as linear and isolated, they suggest evidence must speak to three dimensions of complex systems: 1️⃣ Mechanisms — the interconnected causes behind health problems. 2️⃣ Dynamics — how these causes evolve over time through feedback and adaptation. 3️⃣ Patterns — the emergent outcomes we see at the population level. And across these, three types of evidence are needed: 1️⃣ Causal (understanding why health problems occur), 2️⃣ Intervention (what actions can modify them), and 3️⃣ Implementation (how systems adapt and sustain change). Together, these form nine types of evidence. A practical map for researchers, policymakers and practitioners who want to act systemically, not simplistically. It’s a brilliant and thought-provoking read - one that challenges us to see evidence not as something to “prove what works,” but as something to help us understand, adapt, and evolve within the systems we seek to change. Paper by Karien Stronks et al.

Australia's unemployment payments - meant to provide a social safety net and support people to get back into employment - are below all poverty measures and are far below the average of similar nations. I spoke to the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC)'s Dan Ziffer about Mandala's research quantifying the microeconomic benefits of raising JobSeeker payments to 90 per cent of the age pension. Our research used a microsimulation model to forecast the mental health, physical health and child development outcomes for 20,000 people over 10 years. We found every $100 invested delivers a $24 social return that includes physical and mental health improvements and intergenerational benefits through positive impacts on childhood development. There are also efficiency benefits from fewer hospital and GP visits, lower mental healthcare costs, fewer justice system interactions and lower children's lifetime social security system use. The methodology we used is conservative, meaning the real benefits could be far greater. The low payment level imposes an invisible cost through the burden it places on our health system, homelessness services, and justice system, from having these high rates of poverty. But these costs are substantial. The evidence shows we can avoid much of this cost while generating positive social returns by investing in adequate income support. Proud to work alongside Amy Sergio Jesse Ruishen Adam Triggs Amit Singh to undertake this research.

Will unmet medical need (UMN) be one of the key issues in the revision of the EU pharmaceutical legislation? The European Commission’s proposals include offering six additional months of data protection for addressing UMN and one additional year of orphan market exclusivity for rare disease therapies that address a high UMN.   At a meeting of the EU’s Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council in June 2023, the Beneluxa Initiative presented its proposals for “a needs-driven approach for #pharmaceutical innovation” that sends “a clear, joint message as to which therapeutic interventions have the greatest health benefits for society as a whole.”   A COMMON APPROACH TO IDENTIFYING UNMET NEED AT EU LEVEL Beneluxa members believe that “at the heart should be a common system to identify, assess and appraise unmet patient and societal needs and to set a graded classification of the unmet needs Member States intend to address at EU or at national level. In this new approach the definition of unmet needs should be based on transparent criteria and standardised ways to assess the criteria and determine the levels of need. The collection of evidence on health issues to be included in a needs database should be based on a scientific methodology. As needs may change over time, this database is to be kept up to date. The appraisal and ranking of the unmet needs should be based on predetermined transparent criteria and using the scientific data and evidence included in the evidence database.”   DIALOGUE ON AN EVIDENCE-BASED OPERATIONALISATION OF THE DEFINITION OF UNMET NEEDS “To ensure that developers invest by priority in health interventions for which there is a real patient or societal need, regulatory incentives and financial support for R&D should focus on these identified unmet health needs. The revised #EU legal framework on pharmaceuticals should allow for this needs-driven approach.”   PREDICTABILITY REGARDING THE REIMBURSEMENT OF PRODUCTS THAT ADDRESS HIGH UNMET NEED “The development of a graded classification of unmet patient and societal needs can finally be used to provide predictability to developers of health technologies as to the medical interventions that are eligible for inclusion in the national healthcare benefit packages, after due assessment of their performance. While fully respecting national competencies on pricing and reimbursement, Member States can truly impact the current supply driven system by jointly exploring changes and best-practices in pricing and reimbursement systems. This can help shifting the business model of developers of products or therapeutic interventions toward a sustainable, needs driven model.”   DIALOGUE ON SHIFTING TOWARDS A NEEDS-DRIVEN PHARMACEUTICAL MODEL “Change is essential in order to warrant our European health systems based on solidarity. Sustainable change that benefits patients, payers and industry requires a broad support for new policies.” #unmetmedicalneed

“US drug policy has helped create a volatile, increasingly lethal drug supply. While drug checking remains an essential downstream harm reduction strategy in the current environment, it cannot substitute for upstream prevention through regulation and quality control. The United States should learn from international experience and move from crisis mitigation to structural prevention by authorizing safer supply pilots with clear guardrails, rigorous evaluation, and meaningful leadership from PWUD.”   Rife-Pennington TL, Hill K, Zagorski CM, et al. Upstream Overdose Prevention: Why the US Should Pilot a Safer, Regulated Drug Supply. Substance Use & Addiction Journal. 2026;0(0). https://lnkd.in/g523XRwM

𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐝𝐨 𝐰𝐞 𝐤𝐧𝐨𝐰 𝐢𝐟 𝐚 𝐝𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐩𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐫𝐮𝐥𝐲 𝐞𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞, 𝐞𝐪𝐮𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐛𝐥𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐡 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐯𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭? As the shift toward evidence-based decision-making accelerates, we need more than good intentions. We need evidence, structure, and reliable data to design, monitor, and evaluate programs that create sustainable impact. This resource on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation (PM&E): Methods and Tools offers practical approaches used globally to strengthen accountability and reduce poverty and inequality. It introduces proven methods such as cost-benefit analysis, causality frameworks, benchmarking, process and impact evaluations, all backed by real-world case studies. These tools help ensure that projects are not only well-designed but also deliver meaningful results. This document is especially valuable for: ✅ Civil society leaders designing impactful projects ✅ Policy makers & donors demanding accountability ✅ M&E professionals refining their evaluation toolbox ✅ Students & researchers deepening their knowledge of results-based management #MonitoringAndEvaluation #PME #ResultsBasedManagement #Accountability #EvidenceBasedPolicy #CivilSociety #ImpactEvaluation #DevelopmentTools

Last week, I shared a post about some of the claims the U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright made on the All-In Podcast – and it blew up. The response made one thing clear: there’s a real appetite for facts in a debate that’s too often driven by fear and politics. So here’s a clear, data-driven breakdown of what he said and what the numbers actually show. (1) “The backbone of our grid has been coal, hydro, natural gas, and nuclear.” Accurate, but incomplete. Renewables (wind and solar) are worth mentioning as they provide 17% of U.S. generation, according to the EIA. (2) “Electricity prices fell for 100 years, until subsidies for wind and solar.” False. Prices began rising in the early 2000s – long before renewables scaled – driven by volatile gas prices, aging infrastructure, and underinvestment in transmission. (3) “At peak demand, wind and solar only provide 2–3%. They’re parasites on the grid.” Outdated. Renewables supplied 17% of U.S. power in 2024. In Texas and California, wind, solar, and storage now meet most daytime demand and support evening peaks. (4) “China built 100 coal plants last year. Solar is still tiny.” Partly true. China permitted 106 GW of coal in 2023 but also installed 217 GW of solar and now controls 80% of the global solar supply chain. (5) “Floods, wildfires, and droughts aren’t increasing.” False. The U.S. saw 27 billion-dollar weather disasters in 2024, the second-highest on record. Both the EPA and IPCC confirm that extreme weather events are becoming more frequent and severe. (6) “Fusion is our best hope.” Promising, but decades away. Even the IEA’s Net Zero 2050 roadmap doesn’t depend on fusion. The tools that can cut emissions this decade – renewables, storage, and smarter grids – already exist and are scaling. Bottomline: Do your own research. Don’t let credentials or confidence substitute for evidence. Even the most credible voices can be wrong – especially when the facts are inconvenient.