Key features in a nutshell

• A full-day “Practice Day” (Praxistag) combining laboratory tours, live demonstrator presentations, and structured networking across different university locations.
• The “Practice Day” (Praxistag in German) at TU Darmstadt brought together about 30 representatives from policymaking institutions, NGOs, associations, and businesses with 10 researchers from various academic disciplines.
• The guests from practice organisations toured the labs of the Metal Energy Hub, the Smart Homes EHub and the Digital Resilience Xchange (DiReX) Centre at TU Darmstadt. The practioners were acquainted with state-of-the-art research while the researchers learned about policy questions.
• Delegating event management and targeted participant outreach to dedicated research managers and knowledge exchange officers drastically reduces researchers’ administrative workload and maximises event impact.

How did the format work?

Step 1: Conceptualisation

The Policy Engagement Unit at Goethe University Frankfurt—which coordinates the Erasmus+ project ENGAGEgreen and the Mercator Science-Policy Fellowship Programme of the Rhine-Main Universities (TU Darmstadt, Goethe University Frankfurt, and Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz)—approached researchers at the Metal Energy Hub and the Digital Resilience Xchange (DiReX) centre to explore interest in a policy-oriented event.

A joint team of five researchers, research managers, and knowledge exchange officers co-designed the event and scheduled it for 29 January 2026.

Core Aims of the Event:

• Provide an applied overview of cutting-edge research on renewable energy storage and digital resilience during emergency and crisis situations in Germany.
• Connect researchers from TU Darmstadt directly with regional, national, and local policymakers, as well as stakeholders from industry, NGOs, and public administration.

Step 2: Planning & Targeted Outreach

Researchers and research managers at TU Darmstadt compiled an initial list of 150 key institutional stakeholders. To broaden outreach, the Policy Engagement Unit at Frankfurt reviewed organisational charts across 60+ relevant public sector bodies and identified over 200 tailored contacts.

• Invitations: Official invitations were sent out in early December 2025 to approximately 350 policy professionals and stakeholders.
• Registration Rates: By mid-January 2026, around 35 external practitioners and 10 researchers and research managers from TU Darmstadt had registered (yielding an effective conversion rate of ~10–12%).
• Logistics: Catering was finalised and targeted reminder emails were dispatched two weeks prior to the event.

Step 3: Implementation

The event took place on 29 January 2026.

• 09:00–09:30 | Registration & Welcome: Assembly at the Metal Energy Hub offices (Campus Lichtwiese, TU Darmstadt).
• 09:30–11:30 | Lab Tour 1 – Metal Energy Hub: Presentation of research on innovative green technologies (e.g. zero-carbon energy storage via iron powder oxidation and reduction), followed by a guided laboratory tour led by Dr Marius Schmidt.
• 11:40–12:10 | Lab Tour 3 – Energy-Autonomous Smart Home (eHub): Guided visit by Dr Joachim Schulze, highlighting rapid self-sufficient emergency power setups for photovoltaic system owners.
• 12:10–12:40 | Group Transfer: Shared commute from Campus Lichtwiese to the City Campus of TU Darmstadt.
• 12:40–13:30 | Networking Lunch: Joint light lunch at the Application and Transfer Centre Digital Resilience Xchange (DiReX) to maintain group cohesion during the campus transition.
• 13:30–15:15 | Lab Tour 3 – Digital Resilience Xchange (DiReX): Presentation on resilient digital municipal infrastructure designed for disaster management, including interactive demonstrator tours led by Prof. Dr Michèle Knodt and Prof. Dr Bernd Freisleben.

Step 4: Post-Event Follow-Up

Within one week of the event, the Policy Engagement Unit distributed presentation slides and a comprehensive contact directory of all participating researchers to the external practitioners.

Challenges and how to address them

Overall, the event ran very smoothly, but it’s worth being explicit about why, so other universities can calibrate their own expectations. The researchers, research managers, and knowledge exchange officers involved had already been collaborating for some time through the ENGAGEgreen project and the Mercator Science-Policy Fellowship Programme. This meant established working relationships, shared routines, and mutual trust were already in place before planning even began. Researchers could focus entirely on presenting their findings, while research managers and knowledge exchange officers handled the organisational side.

Universities without this kind of existing infrastructure should expect the first edition of a comparable event to take noticeably more coordination time, simply to build the working relationships that this team could already draw on.

Tasks and resources

Researchers

• Prepared accessible, non-academic presentations and core policy pitches.
• Set up interactive laboratory setups and physical demonstrators.
• Co-developed the thematic scope and suggested relevant expert contacts.

Research managers and knowledge mobilisers

• Managed target group identification across 60+ public sector organisational charts.
• Handled mailing lists, invitation workflows, catering, and social media coverage.
• Coordinated campus transfers and facilitated session moderation.

Policymakers

• Represented local, regional, and national ministries, political parties, NGOs, and businesses.
• Engaged in active Q&A sessions during lab demonstrations.
• Established direct contacts with academic researchers for long-term policy advice.

Pictures

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de

Lessons from a Two-Day Event at the Representation of Hesse to the EU

Key features in a nutshell

• A two-day event in Brussels combining an informal dinner, a workshop with European Commission policy officers, and two panel discussions – around 60 policymakers and practitioners registered, with approximately 40 attending on the main day, along with researchers from three universities
• Built on an existing relationship with the Representation of the State of Hesse to the EU, which had already hosted several policy events for the organisers since 2018 – a head start well worth factoring in when planning a first Brussels event from scratch
• A professional external moderator kept the two 45-minute panel discussions on time and on track, freeing the organisers from having to moderate their own event

How did the format work?

Step 1: Conceptualisation

The Policy Engagement Unit at Goethe University Frankfurt – which coordinates the Erasmus+ project ENGAGEgreen and the Mercator Science-Policy Fellowship Programme of the Rhine-Main Universities (TU Darmstadt, Goethe University Frankfurt, and Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz) – had organised various policy events at the Representation of the State of Hessen to the EU since 2018. In September 2023, the Policy Engagement Unit approached the Regional Representation of Hessen regarding a possible event on green transitions. The Representation of the State of Hessen to the EU advised on the topics of particular policy relevance in Brussels.

The Policy Engagement Unit at Goethe University Frankfurt and the Regional Representation of Hessen codesigned the two-day event, scheduling it for 11 and 12 March 2024.

Core aims of the event:

• Provide an applied overview of cutting-edge research on technical innovations for green transitions and political and financial frameworks for the roll-out of key technologies
• Connect researchers from Goethe-University Frankfurt, TU Darmstadt, and University of Vic directly with policymaking professionals from the European Commission, regional and national governments, as well as representatives from NGOs and business associations
• Provide an overview of the need for expertise in the European Commission to enable our researchers to better identify engagement opportunities and possible engagement formats

Step 2: Planning & targeted outreach

The Regional Representation of Hesse maintains an excellent mailing list, built up through its own policy events. Researchers and research managers from the three participating universities also personally invited Brussels-based practitioners they already knew.

• Panellists and Commission experts: The Policy Engagement Unit identified and invited representatives from various Directorates-General of the European Commission in late 2023 and early 2024, drawing on two complementary approaches: personal contacts built up over previous Brussels events, and a systematic review of the relevant Directorates-General’s organisation charts (see our article on key information sources for more on this technique)
• Panel audience: The Regional Representation and the Policy Engagement Unit sent out official invitations in early February 2024.
• Registration: By early February 2024, around 60 policymakers and other Brussels-based practitioners had registered.
• Logistics: The Regional Representation’s dedicated events team organised catering and prepared the event room.
• Moderation: With two 45-minute panel discussions on the agenda, the organisers decided early on to work with an experienced external moderator able to enforce time limits, rather than moderating themselves; the Policy Engagement Unit held a preparatory call with the moderator, Kai Bruns, and provided a briefing with panellist biographies and guiding questions
• Panellist preparation: The Policy Engagement Unit at Goethe University Frankfurt briefed all panellists ahead of the event

Step 3: Implementation

The event opened with an informal dinner on 11 March 2024. This was a deliberately separate, smaller gathering — around 12 representatives from Frankfurt, Darmstadt, and Vic Universities, the European Commission, and various think tanks and NGOs, all practitioners the organisers already knew personally, rather than a subset of the 60 people registered for the main day.

The main programme followed on 12 March 2024, with approximately 40 people in attendance:

• 10:00–12:00: Workshop with policy officers from two Directorates-General of the European Commission, who discussed their needs for scientific expertise and the channels they use to source it; participating researchers gained direct insight into the day-to-day work of European Commission policy officers
• 12:00–12:30: Light lunch
• 12:30–12:45: Welcome address and introduction by Claus-Peter Appel (Deputy Head of the Representation of the State of Hesse to the EU) and Professor Michèle Knodt (Chair of Comparative Politics and European Integration, TU Darmstadt)
• 12:45–14:15: Panel discussions

Panel 1: Technical innovations for green transitions

• Professor Christian Beidl, Chair of Internal Combustion Engines and Powertrain Systems, TU Darmstadt
• Dr Bernd Biervert, Head of Unit ‘Planet, People and Science for Policy – Clean Planet, Clean Energy Transitions’, DG Research and Innovation, European Commission
• Dr Mabel Mora Garrido, Leader of the Environmental Technologies research line, BETA Technological Centre, University of Vic – Central University of Catalonia
• Professor Anna Possner, Chair of Atmospheric Physics and Climate, Goethe University Frankfurt

Panel 2: Political and financial frameworks for developing and deploying key technologies

• Professor Tobias Berg, Chair of Banking, Goethe University Frankfurt
• Beatrice Coda, Seconded Head of Unit to CINEA, CEF Energy and Renewable Energy Financing Mechanism, DG Energy, European Commission
• Dr Cristian Kanovits, Team Leader, DG Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs, European Commission
• Professor Michèle Knodt, Chair of Comparative Politics and European Integration, Institute for Political Science, TU Darmstadt

Step 4: Post-event follow-up

Within a week of the event, the Policy Engagement Unit shared the contact details for participating researchers and policy professionals. Several researchers and policy professionals have since stayed in touch, exchanging updates on new research findings and EU-level policy developments.

Challenges and how to address them

Overall, the event ran very smoothly, but it’s worth explaining why, so that other universities can calibrate their own expectations. The Policy Engagement Unit at Goethe University Frankfurt had already been collaborating with researchers and research managers at Frankfurt, TU Darmstadt, and the University of Vic through the ENGAGEgreen project and the Mercator Science-Policy Fellowship Programme and had organised three previous policy events at the Regional Representation of Hesse to the EU. This meant established working relationships, shared routines, and mutual trust were already in place before planning even began: researchers could focus entirely on presenting their findings, while the Policy Engagement Unit and the Representation’s event managers handled the organisational side.

Universities without this kind of existing infrastructure should expect the first edition of a comparable event to require noticeably more coordination time, simply to build the working relationships this team could already draw on.

It’s also worth understanding what makes the Regional Representation of Hesse such an effective partner: it organises more than 100 policy events per year, has a dedicated events team and a well-maintained mailing list, and is well known among Brussels policymakers. Its location – within walking distance of the European Parliament and most Directorates-General of the European Commission – makes it a popular venue. The main practical constraint is availability: the Representation needs to be booked at least six months before the intended event date. This is a calendar constraint on securing the venue and date — it does not reflect how much actual work went into planning the event. For that, see the resource table below.

A tip for first-time organisers
If your institution is organising a policy event in Brussels for the first time, get in touch with your regional or national representation in Brussels and ask if they would be willing to host the event on their premises and support you with the organisation. Most German federal states and many regions and countries across Europe maintain such representation offices in Brussels – and they often have a genuine interest in hosting substantive events themselves since it also raises their own profile. Beyond a venue, it’s worth asking specifically what else they can offer: access to their existing mailing list (far more efficient than building one from scratch), an in-house events team, and catering – all of which can significantly reduce both your costs and your organisational workload, as this event shows.

Tasks and resources

Researchers

• Prepared accessible policy pitches and answered questions concisely during the short panel discussions
• Codeveloped the thematic scope and suggested relevant expert contacts

Research managers and knowledge mobilisers

• Liaised with the Regional Representation of Hesse to the EU and approached potential panellists at the three universities and relevant Directorates-General
• Handled mailing lists, invitation workflows, catering, and social media coverage

Policymakers

• Took part in the informal dinner, the workshop, and the panel discussions
• Answered questions from researchers and the audience during the panels
• Established direct contacts with academic researchers for long-term knowledge exchange

A note on costs

Total expenditure – including catering, travel, and moderation – came to around €7,500. The Representation of the State of Hesse to the EU provided the event venue and beverages free of charge, which significantly reduced overall costs.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de

How In-Person Meetings Drive Science-Policy Engagement. Lessons learned from the Rhine-Main Science Dialogue in Germany

Description

Key features in a nutshell

• High reach: The Rhine-Main Science Dialogue enabled 81 researchers to conduct 166 face-to-face meetings with 177 policymaking professionals across 17 regional government institutions in Mainz and Wiesbaden, Germany
• New connections: The format proved exceptionally effective at connecting civil servants and scientists who had no prior experience with science-policy engagement
• Broad inclusivity: Engaged researchers across all disciplines – including STEM, social sciences, humanities, business, and economics – with staff across diverse regional ministries and public bodies

How does the format work?

The core concept is simple: researchers visit policymakers in their own offices and meeting rooms in regional institutions in the state capitals of Mainz and Wiesbaden.

• Mainz is the capital of Rhineland-Palatinate (population approximately 4 million), with about 2,500 ministry officials
• Wiesbaden is the capital of Hesse (population approximately 6.4 million), with over 3,000 public sector staff across various regional institutions

The step-by-step process:

1. Institutional buy-in: The Policy Engagement Office representing the three Rhine-Main Universities approaches regional ministries and public authorities to pitch the initiative.
2. Expert matchmaking: Participating institutions receive curated lists of interested researchers. These lists detail each scientist’s field of expertise, available dates, and links to their academic profiles.
3. Selection & confirmation: HR and departmental managers circulate the lists to their teams. Staff select the researchers they wish to meet via email or an online form, adding brief background notes on the specific policy topics currently on their agenda.
4. Agile scheduling: The Policy Engagement Office forwards meeting requests to the scientists who can accept or decline based on fit and schedule.
5. On-site conversations: Meetings take place on-site at the respective ministry or agency. Aside from providing meeting spaces, host institutions incur no financial costs.

Key results & impact

Track record at a glance:

• 81 scientists participating
• 166 face-to-face meetings conducted
• 177 policymakers and civil servants engaged
• 17 regional policymaking institutions involved

Post-engagement surveys conducted by the Policy Engagement Office at Goethe University Frankfurt revealed high satisfaction levels and strong demand for ongoing dialogue:

• Breaking new ground: 60% of participating policymakers and 50% of researchers reported having little to no prior contact with each other before the scheme
• Long-term engagement: Around 20% of participants agreed to stay in touch for future collaboration
• Overwhelming approval: Over 95% of all participants expressed a desire to conduct similar face-to-face meetings in the future and actively recommended the format to their colleagues

Rollout & Practical Implementation

In November 2023, the Rhine-Main Universities gauged interest among regional institutions in Mainz and Wiesbaden. Demand was high in both capitals. However, due to government reshuffles following state elections in Hesse, the alliance decided to launch an initial pilot run in Mainz in March 2024, followed by another run in Mainz and Wiesbaden in September and October 2024.

Tasks and resources

Scientists

The Policy Engagement Office asks all participating researchers to read the FAQ list and review the websites of the policymaking institutions they will visit. Each meeting typically lasts one hour. Since Mainz and Wiesbaden are both close to the Rhine-Main Universities, travel time is minimal, and researchers are provided with public transport tickets – making the format both time- and cost-efficient for knowledge exchange.

Knowledge exchange managers and research managers

The Policy Engagement Office is responsible for informing policymaking institutions and researchers about the format and available dates via email and the FAQ list. It also prepares the online forms or spreadsheets used to collect areas of expertise, interests, and available time slots, and matches researchers with policymakers accordingly. Finally, it conducts a brief feedback survey among all participants after each round of meetings. Organising the format took around six weeks (full-time equivalent), plus roughly €900 for a joint lunch at the State Chancellery in Mainz – making it a highly efficient format overall.

Policymakers

Policymakers review the list of participating researchers and select whom they would like to meet. Meetings take place either in their own office or in a meeting room within their institution. Ahead of the meeting, policymakers are asked to look at the relevant researcher’s website and prepare questions they would like to discuss.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de

Summary

• Policy red teaming through facilitated discussions where researchers review and comment on early policy drafts from the perspective of scientific evidence and expertise
• Emphasizes multidisciplinarity, making it suitable in particular for complex systemic policy topics, where identifying interdependencies between policy issues is crucial
• Prioritizes policy relevance by clearly defining the knowledge need and anchoring discussions to specific policy problems
• Knowledge brokers enable the process by building trust between participants and making participation easy for both researchers and policymakers
• Validated at the national level through co-development and testing with eight Finnish ministries, with successful pilots conducted at regional and municipal levels

Description of the format

Science Sparring strengthens the evidence base of policy development by bringing researchers and policymakers together at the critical early stage, when meaningful adjustments are still feasible. It is carefully designed by knowledge brokers, making participation for both policymakers and researchers easy and time-efficient.

The core methodology of Science Sparring centers on policy red teaming (see, e.g., Zhang & Gronwall, 2020). Essentially, this means that researchers review and comment on early policy draft documents put forward by policymakers. The process simulates an adversarial science–policy environment, but in a constructive setting designed to generate insights relevant for policy.

A key role in Science Sparring is played by preparatory documents, such as background papers, working group notes, draft texts and impact assessment materials. In the discussions, scientists review and comment on these boundary documents from the perspective of scientific evidence and expertise.

The strength of the approach lies in its ability to bring to the surface blind spots and assumptions that might otherwise go unexamined. By creating a controlled “stress test” for early drafts, Science Sparring can be utilized to reveal known unknowns and unknown knowns. Indeed, early interventions in the drafting process through the lens of scientific expertise can help in uncovering

• missing perspectives that require further review and scrutiny
• risks or side costs relating to the policy means
• feasibility of policy goals and solutions
• problematic framing of concepts or assumptions about causality
• interdependencies requiring a broadened scope of consultations

The development of the method started after conversations with policymakers, during which it was recognized that new interactive models to support science–policy collaboration are needed. Since 2020, the model has been developed and tested through collaborative pilots with eleven organizations in Finland, eight of which are ministries. Developing the model in collaboration with ministries has helped validate the model and fine-tune its core elements.

While the model does not yet have formal legal standing, the Finnish Government Report on the Future (2019–2023)  recommends wider adoption of Science Sparring in ministries’ policy preparation processes.

Most Science Sparring processes begin with a knowledge need identified by policymakers. While this policy-driven initiation is not mandatory, it helps ensure policymakers’ commitment to and engagement in the process. When researchers propose Science Sparring processes, knowledge brokers typically invest more effort and expertise in connecting these proposals to ongoing policy processes.

The different stages of Science Sparring

• Defining the knowledge need: The process begins by defining the precise knowledge needs and factors influencing these needs (such as political conflicts). Knowledge brokers facilitate this process in close collaboration with the policymakers in ministries. Simultaneously, the goals of the Sparring session are clarified with the ministry (or another knowledge user), including the timeframe, final output, and boundary object. A partnership plan is written that documents the agreed knowledge needs, objectives, and logistical arrangements.
• Participant mapping: Knowledge brokers identify an optimal multidisciplinary group of researchers (typically 4–10 participants). Researchers do not need to be affiliated with the Finnish Academy of Science and Letters; instead, knowledge brokers look for the best experts on the topic. Often, selected researchers are affiliated with a wide range of universities and research institutions. Best practice involves discussing which academic disciplines should be included with the knowledge user to ensure the Sparring session meets its objectives. Personal contact and briefing of both civil servants and researchers about the Sparring format is essential for successful dialogue.
• Preparation: This includes formulating workshop questions, ideally in collaboration with experts on the subject in ministries. These questions should be given to the researchers in advance so that they also know what is expected of them.
• Workshops: The workshops are designed to create an environment of trust between researchers and policymakers. Knowledge brokers design the format, facilitate discussions, and make sure everything runs smoothly. Generally, the format consists of short introductory presentations (including goals and ground rules for the day), followed by group discussions around the boundary object. Depending on the knowledge need, the Sparring session can consist of one or multiple workshops that usually last between three to six hours.
• Final output: Those initiating the Science Sparring process typically require a clear final output that synthesizes different types of knowledge. The specific requirements of the final output must be carefully considered throughout the documentation process of workshop content. Unless otherwise specified, the final output is always published to increase the transparency of the process. As knowledge brokers are responsible for consolidating the final output, it is always validated with the researchers to ensure that it does not include any flawed interpretations of the conversations.

Challenges

Closed setting | Science Sparring requires an explorative space where there are also opportunities for tangents in the interaction. This becomes difficult when there are third parties (e.g., stakeholders and interest groups) present as conversations can shift quickly from constructive exploration to adversarial public performance. While the closed nature of these sessions is necessary for candid dialogue, it creates transparency obligations. These can be addressed by, for example, publishing both the outcomes and participant list, and encouraging knowledge brokers to openly document their role in the process.

Trust | The critical framing integrated in Science Sparring demands exceptionally high trust among participants. Policymakers in charge of the legislative drafting must be willing to open their early drafts and expose their early thinking, including potential flaws and knowledge gaps. Without mutual understanding that criticism serves as a tool for better policy, interactions can quickly turn destructive rather than constructive.

Resource intensiveness | The process and its planning, particularly in defining the knowledge need, can be quite substantial. Knowledge brokers should manage this planning and ensure that researchers’ time commitment is kept to a minimum to maximize their quality engagement and motivation to participate.

Optimal group size | Workshop size requires careful management. Groups exceeding 20 participants often suffer from cancellations and reduced engagement. A more compact group size facilitates higher-quality dialogue and more meaningful exchanges between participants.

Managing hierarchies and existing tensions | Existing hierarchies between participants can undermine the open exchange that Science Sparring requires. Knowledge brokers must actively identify these dynamics during planning and use structured dialogue techniques to manage these tensions.

Tasks and resources

• Knowledge brokers: Knowledge brokers facilitate the process and enable open discussions. Their role as expert facilitators is essential from early need identification to facilitation as they clarify the knowledge need, identify suitable participants and brief them, prepare the workshop structure and preparatory materials, facilitate discussions, and coordinate the final output.
• Policymakers: Policymakers’ motivation is crucial for success. Effective Science Sparring sessions are usually demand-driven, initiated by policymakers with existing knowledge needs. Policymakers should remain open and actively participate throughout the process as engagement level directly correlates with the value gained. Most importantly, policymakers, especially those responsible for the topic, should recognize themselves as experts bringing valuable knowledge to the discussion, not passive recipients of academic input. Depending on the Sparring and its design, policymakers can be policy officers, head of units, or even both.
• Researchers: Researchers bring multidisciplinary expertise to the discussion and provide constructive, critical feedback to the policy document, which is then fine-tuned. During discussions, researchers are requested to articulate whether their contribution is based on peer-reviewed research or expert evaluation.

Examples of Science Sparring, conducted by the Finnish Academy of Science and Letters:

• Knowledge base of physical activity, sports and elite sports (Ministry of Education and Culture), 2025
• Monitoring and Evaluation Plan for Government R&D funding (Prime Minister’s Office), 2024
• Systems mapping of demographic change (Prime Minister’s Office, DEMOGRAPHY program), 2024
• Implementation of the Restoration Regulation (Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Science Panels), 2024
• Ecological connectivity (Ministry of the Environment), 2023
• Anticipation of the Biodiversity Act (Ministry of the Environment), 2023
• National Climate Adaptation Plan (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry), 2022
• Architectural Policy Program (Ministry of Education and Culture, Ministry of Economic Affairs and Employment, and Ministry of the Environment), 2021
• Roadmap to Fossil-Free Transportation (Ministry of Transport and Communications), 2021
• Public Sector Strategy (Ministry of Finance and Association of Finnish Municipalities), 2020
• Nature Conservation Act reform (Ministry of the Environment), 2020–2021
• National Transportation Plan (Ministry of Transport and Communications), 2020
• Climate Regulatory Impact Assessment (Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Justice), 2020

Implementation of the Restoration Regulation (Ministry of the Environment, Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Science Panels), 2024.
Picture: Aleksi Kylmälahti, Finnish Academy of Science and Letters.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de

Key points at a glance

• Parliamentary events such as breakfasts or evening events allow scientists to engage directly with members of the German Bundestag (federal parliament) during session weeks, present policy options, and contribute to evidence-informed policymaking
• Events held on the premises of the Bundestag require a a member of the Bundestag to serve as host – ideally the parliamentary group spokespersons for the respective topic; what matters most is not so much the number of participating members of the Bundestag but their expertise and political influence (e.g., rapporteurs and chairs of the relevant committees)
• Short, clearly understandable presentations with concrete recommendations for action – supplemented by a take-home fact sheet – are particularly well received by members of the Bundestag
• A coalition of several scientific organizations (e.g., Helmholtz SynCom and Leopoldina) increases visibility and impact; the dialogue can be continued after the event in bilateral follow-up meetings
• For parliamentary events to be effective, they must be part of a broader dialogue process

How does the format work?

During the German Bundestag’s session weeks, numerous parliamentary events take place: for example, at the German Parliamentary Society, in the Jakob-Kaiser-Haus cafeteria, or in the restaurants in and around the Reichstag building. Since many interest groups organize events simultaneously, scientific organizations and interest groups compete for parliamentary members’ attention. Having a member of the Bundestag with thematic expertise as a patron ensures access and relevance. For parliamentary events to have an impact, they must be part of a broader dialogue process.

Example: Parliamentary breakfast “The climate impact of methane – An underestimated threat”

On October 17, 2024, Helmholtz SynCom and Leopoldina hosted a parliamentary breakfast at the German Parliamentary Society. The topic was chosen because of its political relevance and at the suggestion of politicians. Under the patronage of Dr. Konstantin von Notz, and Lisa Badum, bothmembers of the Bundestag, 34 scientists and policymakers gathered (the venue’s maximum capacity). Politicians from the relevant committees were invited.

The agenda for the 1.5-hour session: Following the opening remarks by the patron and welcoming addresses by the vice presidents of both scientific organizations (10 minutes), three 8-minute scientific keynote presentations were given: on methane concentrations in the atmosphere, the energy sector, and agriculture as the largest source of methane emissions in Germany. In the subsequent 40-minute discussion with the members of pthe Bundestag, topics such as the transformation of agriculture, upstream emissions from imported LNG, regulatory options, and future challenges like leaks from hydrogen networks were explored in depth. A fact sheet containing the scientific community’s recommendations for action was distributed to the Bundestag members present.

In the evaluation, participants particularly praised the “clearly organized facts” as well as the “short, clear, and understandable” presentations with “concrete possible solutions.” Following the event, the dialogue continued in further exchange meetings between researchers and policymakers or ministry representatives.

Tasks and resources

Scientists

Scientists prepare short, accessible keynote presentations with concrete recommendations for action and contribute to the creation of a fact sheet. The time required for content preparation and delivery is approximately three days; organizational tasks take about one hour. Follow-up bilateral meetings with lawmakers or ministries may result afterward.

Transfer and communication staff (support staff)

Staff in the areas of transfer and communication are responsible for the bulk of the organizational work (approximately 1.5 weeks): They secure sponsors, book the venue, identify, and invite relevant members of the Bundestag, coordinate the program, contribute to the creation of the fact sheet, and conduct the evaluation.

Policymakers

Ideally, members of the Bundestag serve as patrons, including delivering the opening remarks or a welcome address. The time commitment ranges from two to eight hours, depending on whether they serve as a host with a reception address and whether follow-up meetings take place.

References

Leopoldina and SynCom, Helmholtz Earth & Environment (2024), The Climate Impact of Methane – An Underestimated Threat. Fact Sheet. pp. 1–4, https://doi.org/10.48440/leopoldina_syncom.2024.001.

Heidenreich, Marie; Brunner, Almut; Meyn, Andrea; Sielemann, Katharina (2024), Navigating uncertainties: collaborative approaches to science-policy dialogues, Frontiers in Earth Science, https://doi.org/10.3389/feart.2025.1602005.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de

About the idea

The Erasmus+ project EngageGreen (Enhancing Institutional Capacities for Policy Engagement for Green and Digital Transitions) also aims to translate the green and digital transition in a public and shared process. The objective is twofold: firstly, to reduce the distance between the conventional university pathway and businesses with a global change agenda; and secondly, to create opportunities for interaction between students and policymakers or NGO personnel. This interaction can offer students the chance to understand that economic growth can be achieved in a fair, sustainable and responsible way. Similarly, NGOs can benefit from interactions with young people who are strongly motivated to effect an economic transition. The university can act as the ideal facilitator for interactions between social actors with different perspectives, within the framework of the learning process.

1. Summary: Key features in a nutshell

• Originated from academic team’s observation: a lack of offering in the academic programs about social business theories but the willing to know more about the topics by the students.
• Resulted in 4 open lessons named “Social Business Talks” hosted by academic course with some connections with social business held by professionals of the private sector, policymakers and academics.
• Since the importance of the topics, the open lessons were open also to public sector workers, third sector workers and civil society (for example, NGO’s).
• Mobilized academia, policymakers, private sector to spread knowledge among students and civil society.
• Included final debate and networking thanks to the availability of the speakers to informal chatting after the lecture.
• Ultimately, it allows for a new perspective and a broader understanding of the policy-making and implementation process.

2. Starting point

The impetus for establishing a series of open lessons that would facilitate the comprehension of social business theories emerged from the observations by the Yunus Social Business Centre – Ca’ Foscari University’s team. The academic programme offered by the Department of Economics and the Venice School of Management, in particular, is characterized by a small number of courses relating to social dimension of business. The intention was therefore to bring those experiences together in a coordinated manner, drawing on the specific expertise of each lecturer involved. The Centre is, in fact, divided into several research units, and we have endeavour to organize at least one open lecture per research unit. Social business talks’ case study points out how it is possible to engage students when it comes to topics that are not so focused in the academics course although their attention is considered crucial. This initiative was launched by Yunus Social Business Centre – Ca’ Foscari University with the support by the Department of Economics at Ca’ Foscari University Venice, the Venice School of Management and Department of Philosophy and Cultural Heritage at Ca’ Foscari University Venice under the Erasmus+ ENGAGEgreen project.

3. How does the format work?

Before the lecture:

• identify lecturers who teach master’s degree courses with potential links to the key issues of social business
• identify the topic to be linked to the key issues of social business (in our case: social innovation, healthcare, social impact, international cooperation)
• identify external speakers to contribute to the lectures and checking their availability
• draw up the schedule
• prepare the promotional flyer and distributing it
• collect the applications

During the lecture:

• set up the room
• collect feedback from speakers and participants
• take a photo of classes

After the lecture:

• send a thank-you note
• post on LinkedIn with a photo and the key points that emerged

4. Who should be involved as participants?

Master degree’s students, bachelor degree’s students, doctoral students, researchers, professors, public sector organizations and third sector associations.

5. Challenges

• Involve students that may be interested in the topics.
• Involve public sector workers, third sector workers and civil society during working hours.
• Make public sector organizations, third sector associations and civil society aware that the lessons are open to everyone and that anyone can attend (there is a tendency for university lectures to be perceived from the outside as being intended solely for students).
• Ensure that current and relevant topics are included.

6. Task and resources

Academics

The programme is very time-efficient for academics. Since the open lessons are held as part of lectures that have already been organized, the major effort concerns involvement of the speakers.

Support staff (Researchers, Knowledge exchange managers and research managers)

The Departments used:

• one researcher who were already on staff to handle the organizational management of the initiative;
• one research manager who handled the promotion of the initiative.

Students/policymakers/researchers/workers from public bodies and Third sector

Participants must submit an application form, which takes one minute to complete.

Required funding

Travelling cost for speakers.

7. Links

LinkedIn posts

• https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7463178068925247489
• https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7459968415202484225
• https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7407538176900243456
• https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7406374813172224001
• https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7401670730335166465
• https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7400163971191787520

Yunus Social Business Centre – Ca’ Foscari University

• https://www.unive.it/pag/46277

8. Photos

2 December 2025 | Social Innovation as a driver of social business

12 December 2025 | Innovation and digital transformation at Save the Children: organisational challenges and opportunities

15 December 2025 | POP Report – Popular Financial Reporting

18 May 2026 | (F)or (I)mpact o(R) (M)oney? What positive role can FIRMs play in international cooperation for development?

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de

Doing History Is Not Telling the Story You Want

We wanted to interview teacher-researchers who have experience collaborating with elected officials or local authorities in order to report on these experiences and the challenges these encounters raise, including through their dysfunctions. To this end, we met with historian Etienne Faugier, who shared with us his work with elected officials who wanted to tell the history of their commune.

In what context did you work with political representatives? How did the meeting come about, and what do you think they expected from you?

One of my recent experiences working with elected officials was with a peri-urban commune east of Lyon, a request that had been passed on by a Master’s student of one of my fellow historians. The mayor wanted research to be conducted and a book to be produced on the history of his commune. There were four researchers to cover the four major periods to be traced (ancient, medieval, modern, and contemporary). I was assigned to the final, more contemporary part – the one that caused the most problems. The request was, in fact, to have “a beautiful book to offer new residents or newlyweds.”

What obstacles/challenges/limits did you encounter in this cooperation with elected officials/politicians?

The team of four researchers met about ten times with the mayor and the DGS (Director General of Services) of the commune to work on this project. We signed an agreement that went through the publisher chosen by the mayor. It was the commune that paid the publisher – through a cultural funding stream— who in turn paid us individually for the work carried out (mainly travel expenses, the salary of an intern, and a professional photographer). What was agreed upon was that our colleague would give a final lecture to present the book to the residents; a documentary was also filmed.

There were very few comments regarding the first three parts, but my contemporary section was modified dozens of times. Certain passages had to be removed – on urban brownfields, for example – or figures altered when INSEE (National Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies) data differed from the commune’s field data. Relations were tense because there were also short deadlines to meet – clashing with the long timeframe of historical research – and all editorial choices rested with the funding town hall. The result is a book that is weakened from an academic standpoint and difficult to showcase within the scientific community (even if that was not necessarily the municipality’s objective), despite the genuine archival and writing work.

For me, there was, on one hand, a lack of understanding of how historians work, and conversely, of how politicians work. The solution could have been to write the first three parts, which were less controversial, “as historians,” and let the cabinet write the last one. There was a problem with defining the project, defining what a book is and what a historian’s work is, as opposed to a journalist’s, for example – which is just as legitimate, but different. In the end, there was no closing lecture on site, but today we are nevertheless starting to showcase this work during scientific mediation events, such as Pint of Science in May 2026.

How would you evaluate this collaboration? Would you do it again?

The positive side was that we had very easy access to the archives, notably through the municipal archivist who was very invested in the project, and we were able to conduct genuine historical research. The result is a beautiful book, but not one that qualifies as scientific, and which we cannot, for instance, credit to our scientific careers.

Nonetheless, it was an opportunity to meet people who daily deal with issues I work on myself (urban planning, mobility, tourism, etc.), and if I had to do it over, yes, I would do it again. It would actually be very important and interesting for other communes to request such monographic work! But I would ask that the expectations be clearly laid out beforehand: Are there controversial topics to avoid? What kind of object do we want at the end: a piece of journalism, political communication, or a rigorous scientific work? We researchers also need to be clearer about what we are capable of and agree to deliver or not, keeping in mind that there is, of course, a dimension of knowledge mediation that we must also pursue.

What recommendations or measures could be put in place to improve this relationship?

In another project, for example, I was able to work with the Ministry of the Environment, which has a History Committee that acts as an intermediary and a translator, in a way, of the elected officials’ requests for the researchers. When there is no intermediary, it is sometimes difficult to work well together, whereas, when there is one, it is truly an opportunity for us to meet key stakeholders of the subjects we are interested in, to make our work known to them, and to assert our expertise.

We need to know how to build bridges, create emulation and networks – between scientific and political events, for example – to force these two worlds, which do not always communicate well, to cross paths so that elected officials can identify the right resource people and vice versa. Particularly for our discipline, we need to show that knowledge of history is relevant for steering the present, that there is a relevance for the long term in understanding the present.

There is a reluctance among colleagues to step out of “pure science,” which is made clear to us in the sense that these projects do not advance careers, and there is a real fear of speaking out on topics slightly outside our areas of expertise. I experienced this after an op-ed in the press, for example, where I received threats or at least faced a certain pressure from my peers – a judgment on actually daring, as a historian, to cross boundaries between subjects and periods.

Furthermore, throughout my career, I have been called upon for citizens’ conventions on mobility, for example. There, I brought real expertise within a clearer and healthier framework, with the freedom to express myself on subjects that are nevertheless also very sensitive: the place of the car in the city, low emission zones (ZFE), automobile taxation, public transport, etc. I have also been able to help make political choices clearer and have even been mobilized to help develop political programs during simple discussions requested by candidates. I found them quite willing to listen, and I indicated that I might be interested in a follow-up, but this raises a question for me: When should I speak out as an expert, and when am I simply a citizen?

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de

Summary

To ensure scientific evidence translates into impactful policy, a direct exchange between researchers and policymakers is crucial. This event aimed to bridge the gap between the science world and policymaking actors at both local and national levels. It served as a key platform for scientists to effectively disseminate project results and suggestions, and for policymakers to voice their practical needs, concerns, and priorities, ensuring the science remains relevant and actionable.

Jointly organized by Erasmus+ ENGAGEgreen and the Horizon Europe project PLANET4HEALTH, and hosted by Pompeu Fabra University in Barcelona (PLANET4HEALTH project partner), the topics covered a broad and crucial spectrum, focusing on urban, environmental and health policies.

The event promoted and enabled cross-project collaboration and engaged diverse stakeholder groups such as local authorities, national ministries, business sector and civil society, establishing the foundation to maximize the impact of EU-funded research and ensure the long-term sustainability of the developed tools and recommendations.

How does the format work

Before the event

The ENGAGEgreen unit within the Department of Economics of Ca’ Foscari University, which also manages PLANET4HEALTH, convenes preliminary meetings with both consortia to establish a central theme. Together with partners and advisory board members, they curate a list of subject-matter experts aligned with the chosen topic.

Once availability is confirmed, the coordinating team finalizes the program and session lineup of speakers. Regular online meetings with the host university are maintained to ensure alignment and prevent logistical oversights.

Invited contributors receive comprehensive briefings regarding the venue, schedule, and reimbursement procedures. They are also provided with a final panel list and speaker biographies to familiarize with each other. Reminders are sent to both in-person and remote presenters.

During the training

Organizers manage the welcome and registration of attendees. The team facilitates remote connections for virtual speakers and coordinates with catering staff to ensure refreshments align with scheduled breaks.

After the training

The organizers send a message of thanks to speakers and participants, inviting them to follow the project’s updates on social media, and asking to complete a feedback survey to evaluate the session’s impact and organization.

Participants

22 researchers

3 policymakers

1 NGO/civil society

7 project/research managers

Challenges (and the way to address them)

• Finalize the speakers’ lineup and consequently the program well in advance to have enough time for promotion before registration deadline. Mitigation measures: regular meetings between core organizational teams (e.g. main organizer and host).
• Speakers unavailable in-person at the last minute. Mitigation measures: set up an online meeting link in advance and select a room with the proper equipment in the event of a hybrid session. Send an email reminder the day and 1 hour prior to the event to make sure the remote speakers are connected on time.

Tasks and ressources

Main organizer’s team

• Content of the event: coordinates agenda, contacts partners to inquire about the most suitable speakers and finalizes the lineup for each session.
• Logistical aspects: sets up the pre-registration & communication, meeting room and catering services.

Hosting institution

The hosting institution is involved in all preliminary phases, but above all in all logistics aspects in loco such as contact with catering services, printing of essential material and booking of the room. Possible support in identifying nearby accommodations for speakers.

Speakers

Panellists meet separately with the organizers for a briefing on the topics, the background of the other speakers and the session format (e.g., individual presentations, roundtable discussions, or Q&A). Receive timely updates on timing, logistics, and presentation requirements.

Required funding for activities

Reimbursement for travel/accomodation of some speakers.

Catering services for the informal moments such as coffee break and networking lunch at the end of the training.

Sources and further reading

LinkedIn post

MEDIALAB UGR event press release

PLANET4HEALTH project website

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de

SUMMARY

How can we improve innovation processes? And how can we develop new ideas to solve the problems of a complex society? To answer these questions, Ca’ Foscari University Venice decided to start with its own staff and researchers, putting them in touch with external partners who are tackling new challenges and problems. This gave rise to the idea of CLabs – Ca’ Foscari Laboratories for Active Learning, an initiative launched in 2018 that continues to run successfully today. The CLabs take place at both the university’s Venice and Treviso campuses. The CLab is structured as 6–8-week workshops aimed at supporting undergraduates and PhD students from diverse academic backgrounds in developing original projects addressing real-world challenges and problems, by harnessing their creativity and using methodologies such as Design Thinking and the Business Model Canvas.

Among these, the Venice Youth ACTION project has generated great interest; it was conceived and promoted by the Fondazione di Venezia, in collaboration with Ca’ Foscari University of Venice and the Fondazione Università Ca’ Foscari and Youth Bank International. The aim is to generate value within the Metropolitan City of Venice by engaging the younger population through a training program that empowers them to participate actively in all decision-making and governance processes. The main objective of the Laboratory is to accelerate the projects selected through a “Call for Ideas” aimed at groups of students who, in collaboration with local non-profit organizations, submit a project and/or initiative with a social impact that aligns with one of the key themes considered fundamental for strengthening local communities and envisioning sustainable and inclusive development.

HOW DOES THE FORMAT WORK?

Before the event

Two central university bodies (one for Venice, one for Treviso) coordinate the initiative. CLab Ca’ Foscari Venice (led by Prof. Sara Bonesso), together with its institutional partner, discusses with external partners (public authorities, local businesses and NGOs) a challenge on which to engage the students. The discussion takes the form of co-design process. The proposal of a topic is open to any university lecturer or external partner. Ideas may have their own budget (for example, established in collaboration with an external partner) or may require funding from the University. A Technical and Scientific Committee evaluates and selects all the proposals.

CLab therefore publishes a call for applications on the University’s website, aimed at the student community, and collects expressions of interest from those wishing to take part. The call is also publicized across the University’s three campuses.

Proposals are generally submitted by 15 October each year, and the workshops take place the following spring.

During the laboratory

The workshop lasts between 6 and 8 weeks (though they may be shorter), requiring a commitment of two or three days a week.

A typical 6-week workshop can be divided into 6 phases: launch, research, definition, ideation, validation, and finalisation (final presentation).

Each workshop involves the presence of tutors/facilitators who support and guide participants through the training programme, stimulating their interest and motivation.

The coordinating lecturer has scientific and educational responsibility for the CLab entrusted to them and actively collaborates with the team of experts.

After the laboratory

At the end of the workshop, the results are presented publicly by the students themselves, together with the project partners.

The findings are disseminated both through in-person public events and via social media, specifically Instagram and Facebook, in collaboration with the university’s communications Department.

At the end of the course, participating students are awarded open badges (certificates attesting to the knowledge, skills and abilities acquired).

The CLAB management team conducts an evaluation during the summer and then begins gathering new ideas and proposals for the next cycle, which starts in the autumn.

PARTICIPANTS

Over the years, the Venetian CLab has seen the participation of 1,378 people, developed 203 projects, involved 171 partners from outside the university, and awarded students 946 open badges.

CHALLENGES (AND WAY TO ADDRESS THEM)

• It is possible that the call is not widely known and that, as a result, few ideas are submitted. For this reason, the call is publicized not only on the University website but also by the Departments and various interested lecturers. The external partners are also involved in publicizing the call.
• The workshop lasts approximately six weeks. It is not always possible for all students to attend, so it is important not only to encourage participants to attend regularly, but also to ensure that the working group can continue to operate under any circumstances. This is facilitated by a modular structure and the presence of tutor facilitators.

TASKS AND RESOURCES

Main organizer’s team

• Event content: coordinating the agenda, liaising with partners regarding the most suitable challenges, and finalising the line-up for each call.
• Organizational aspects: drafting the call for proposals; selecting proposals; disseminating information; and organising the logistics of the venues provided for the workshop and the final presentation.

Hosting institution

The hosting institution (CLab Ca’ Foscari, as the promoter) is involved in all preliminary phases, from the call for proposals to all logistics aspects in loco.

Researchers/mentors

Lecturers who put forward ideas are involved in the initial proposal stage and, if the idea is accepted, they lead the workshop themselves. The University recognies the lecturers’ involvement as teaching hours.

Students

Students are recruited through a call for applications and then work on devising and testing solutions to tackle the challenge set by the workshop.

Partners

Partners contribute by setting challenges for the students during the preliminary phase, sharing the workshop’s findings at the end, and disseminating the results through their own communication channels.

REQUIRED FUNDING FOR ACTIVITIES

Funds may be made available to the institutions promoting the challenge, including by the University itself.

SOURCES AND FURTHER READING

CLab Ca’ Foscari https://www.unive.it/pag/30571/

Call for ideas: https://forms.gle/quJR3viwoWrGp93c6

Call for Ideas Venice Youth ACTION https://www.unive.it/pag/44584/

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de

Marie Preau is Professor of Social Psychology and Director of the Reshape laboratory, Marie Préau has been serving as a project manager for scientific strategy in the field of health since September 2022.

1. In what framework/project have you worked with elected officials / political representatives?

In public health, we inevitably have links with politicians.

Several experiences. My first experience with politicians was as a researcher within the National AIDS Council (CNS), which is a national body whose members are appointed by the Prime Minister or even the President. This body brings together experts, researchers as well as individuals from civil society, representatives of societies of thought, such as religious faiths or Freemasonry. It was interesting because the CNS either took up topics on its own initiative to work on referrals, or was referred to by the Ministry of Health on matters such as the management of HIV among migrants, medicalized prevention, etc. There were also political sociologists like Alain Touraine; it was interesting to have their perspective, combined with those of citizens, experts, associations, and family representatives.

It wasn’t the elected officials who directly introduced the topics; we collectively chose a referral on a subject. We didn’t base our work directly on them, but they contributed by asking their questions. But the nature of the questions is inherently political, such as the medicalized prevention of HIV: Is it acceptable to give a drug to people to protect themselves, like a contraceptive pill? What message should be conveyed to citizens? It is complicated to say that people continue to take sexual risks but that we can give them a treatment that will protect them from it.

Another related question: can this treatment be reimbursed by social security? Afterward, we worked extensively on the issue of the management of migrants because there was a discourse from certain politicians saying that migrant populations were arriving in France to get treated for HIV, etc.

Ethics were involved, and there was also a sensitive side to it.

We had a referral regarding the organization of HIV prevention management in French Guiana. For that, we went there on a 10-day visit to see everything. So, there were really major things at stake. So, that’s an experience that impacts you in how you do research. Personally, I have always held that the researcher is there to provide scientific data to help others, like elected officials, build their advocacy.

So I feel very comfortable with that; our job is to provide data and publication. Publication is a condition for our credibility.

Regarding my experience as scientific co-coordinator or director of the SHAPE-Med@Lyon project – winner in 2022 of the France 2030 “ExcellencES” call for projects, which draws on all the scientific strengths of the Lyon-Saint Etienne site to develop transforming research and training projects in the field of health and well-being – the question of the connection with elected officials was embedded in the project right from the start. This corresponded to the time of the implementation of the local health contract (CLS) where they set up the Scientific Committee. So, I am a member of the Scientific Committee of the CLS. We work very closely with elected officials there. We did a 5-day mission to Barcelona with the DGS (Director General of Services), in the presence of the Director General of Health for the city of Lyon. And it was interesting because we actually went to visit the Barcelona City Hall, which has One Health actions, so they wanted to see how it was organized. And there is a global health institute in Barcelona that was something of a model we were interested in to understand exactly how it worked. We realized that it was not applicable in France given the organization because, among other things, they have private funders like the Spanish bank La Caixa, which would not be possible in France. But it was definitely an interesting experience to see the questions they asked and the questions we asked.

I think we are going to achieve co-constructed projects – genuinely with city stakeholders; I think this is one of the first times to my knowledge.

2. What do you think the conditions for a constructive dialogue between researchers and elected officials are?

In this last experience, there was a firm commitment from both sides: from the researchers’ side and from the city’s side, which wanted to involve academics in the operation of these local contracts to bring credibility to all actions, to validate them scientifically.

In SHAPE-Med, we had declared that we wanted to work with local institutions and that we wanted this partnership. We persisted: we had the elected officials and directors come to the SHAPE workshops. And we didn’t give up, even if we were discouraged at times. But progress was made. Now we do joint presentations, researchers and elected officials, as in the Jacques Cartier interviews.

We also organize workshops together, walking lectures/conferences, and conferences in the city park of Lyon.

So, I think the contract, the actions of the local health contract, are truly built on scientific data with researchers, and the topics we develop also stem from field realities. There is one, for instance, on bedbugs. We started from field experience and went looking for expertise in biology, economics, etc. I think we will eventually secure funding for this project.

It works both ways; it’s give and take: it fuels the credibility of the CLS actions, and, conversely, we build projects based on the reality of what is actually happening.

3. Have you had experiences where this collaboration did not work?

The problem is often a matter of time; we don’t know how long this body will last following regular new elections. Sometimes, we wonder how far we should go. The Scientific Committee of the CLS—how long will it exist? Do weknow at what point we are to stop or not, and how?

4. If you had to recommend to colleagues for them to get involved in this type of initiative, what would you tell them? What advice would you give them?

I think you have to ensure that you are not going to work for the politicians but defending a common cause.

Why did it work? Because the common scientific objective is One Health, and, in fact, the elected official was waiting for our results and trusted us. But we weren’t there to defend the policy of the city of Lyon. It’s just that we truly had this common goal and, as a result, mutual recognition of expertise from both sides. I think that is, for me, the key to our collaboration.

Do you want to know more about the policy engagement toolkit?

Do you want to share your experience in policy engagement? Do you think about contributing to the policy engagement toolkit? Feel free to contact Tome Sandevski via science-policy@pvw.uni-frankfurt.de