Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The European Research Council (ERC) aims to fund ground-breaking “bottom-up” research, with no predefined objectives or priorities. Moreover, evaluating panels are specifically instructed to evaluate proposals only based on scientific merits, and that societal impact is not an evaluation criterion. Nevertheless, projects that are originally unrelated to policy can produce results that are relevant for evidence-based policies and other public actions: public interest outcomes don’t necessarily come exclusively from research designed for societal purposes. In this presentation, we will showcase some examples of ERC-funded projects in Earth Sciences that resulted in societal/policy actions. Topics covered range from physical oceanography, to hydrology, fire monitoring, or atmospheric pollution. We will explain how the researchers expanded their activities beyond academia to engage in Science for Policy and other public services. Indeed, to bridge this gap between research and public action, ERC grantees followed a variety of paths: they created their own consultancies, they were invited after posting a “tweet”, or they focused on journalism and outreach, to name a few. Featured projects are only a few examples of how curiosity-driven research may have an impact beyond academic knowledge. The paths to influencing public policy are many, and the extra effort is worthwhile to ensure policy actions are based on the most advanced research knowledge.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Torres et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: