| 英文摘要: | To the Editor —
Rose1 argues that embracing an 'evidence-informed' rather than 'evidence-based' attitude to policymaking should result in more effective action on climate change. As scientists who advise policymakers and environmental managers, we suggest instead that (1) scientists need to work harder to communicate results in a concise and accessible way and (2) more attention needs to be given to turning policy into practice.
Science can't — and shouldn't — prescribe policy, but it can ground it in reality, and the aspiration to be evidence-based is important. To do this, a clear distinction needs to be drawn between the presentation of evidence and advocacy of policy responses, otherwise the science may be undermined by a perception that it is politically biased2. We think Rose is unduly pessimistic about how influential climate science has been in setting many international and regional policy agendas, including those of the United Nations, the European Union and many national governments. The problems of turning policy into action are, however, often underestimated. Indeed, a significant challenge to further policymaking is that climate change mitigation is perceived by some to be impractical or too expensive.
The primary duty of scientists to policymakers is to present their work clearly and effectively. As the volume of publications on climate change has increased, this has become increasingly challenging. The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports are as close to comprehensive as it is possible to be and are fantastic resources, but will be read only rarely and selectively by policymakers. Even the summaries for policymakers are more appropriate to specialists within government departments than decision-makers. There is a need to concisely summarize the most important points and present them clearly. Distilling the message down to the key points for the intended audience is an essential element of review and synthesis, and the challenge is to do this in such a way that there is traceability from headlines to the underlying science. We have used the concept of a report card, where simple evidence statements can be tracked back through more detailed reviews to the original literature3, and commend this as one effective option.
Developing good policy is not the same as solving a problem: it has to lead to effective action. In the UK there has been a high-level policy direction to adapt to and mitigate climate change for many years and this was hard-wired into law in the 2009 Climate Change Act. Nevertheless, a recent report4 concluded that while there was progress, the “underlying pace of emissions reduction was insufficient to meet future carbon budgets”. Adaptation and mitigation are intrinsically different from climate science and impacts studies, requiring input from many sciences and leadership by practical people: engineers, farmers, planners and many others. The challenge to scientists is to inform and challenge them as much as policymakers. |