Bridging science and policy: a week at Westminster

What is the Royal Society’s pairing scheme and why were you interested in taking part?

The aim of the scheme is to foster better communication between scientists and policymakers in Westminster. The idea is to get scientists - those providing the evidence for policies - talking directly with the people making those decisions, so that policies can be more informed and effective.

Science and politics are essential for society and citizens, but it often feels like there is a gulf between the scientific and policymaking worlds. As scientists, we’re often good at engaging with patients and the public, but generally not so good at interacting with policy makers - those who make the crucial decisions that shape what we do.

That’s what motivated me to apply and take part in the scheme.

What did the week involve?

Time was split between the Royal Society, the Government Office for Science (or "GO Science"), and shadowing a peer in the House of Lords. I was paired with Lord Patrick Stopford (The Earl of Courtown), a hereditary peer who's been active in the House of Lords for over 35 years. I spent two days shadowing him and learning about how science is considered in policy decisions.

How close are the Royal Society and Westminster physically?

They're actually very close - only about a 10-15-minute walk through central London. The Royal Society’s building overlooks The Mall, with Buckingham Palace at one end. It’s a really spectacular setting. I also had a chance to walk through the underground walkway passages under the Elizabeth Tower and Big Ben to reach government offices!

What were the highlights of the visit?

Seeing the historic membership book, signed by every fellow since the Royal Society’s founding. It includes signatures from the likes of Isaac Newton, Stephen Hawking - even Elon Musk, though his name is a bit controversial there!

Besides the historical aspects, we also learned about grant funding and had discussions with some notable individuals such as Baroness Freeman. She’s a relatively new peer and experienced science communicator, who shared insights into making complex concepts more accessible for non-experts.

What did you learn about science in policymaking?

We met with scientific advisory teams from both the House of Commons and House of Lords. Their job is to compile research and evidence for ministers and committees. I had limited insight of how policy was formed before - but honestly, I didn’t appreciate how detailed and rigorous the process could be.

Generally, policy is initiated in the Commons. If it’s deemed viable, it moves to the Lords, where it’s scrutinised for robustness, potential loopholes, and unintended consequences, and where they focus on refining and improving proposed legislation. Members with relevant expertise often lead that process. This back-and-forth between the two chambers - called "ping-pong" - continues until both sides agree.

What’s the main difference between the Commons and the Lords in this process?

The Commons is obviously more political - naturally, since it's full of elected officials. The Lords, while it includes former politicians, also has many crossbenchers. These are non-partisan experts from fields like science, business, and law. They're selected partly to ensure that the Lords have expertise in various current and emerging areas.

Is every Lord involved in policymaking?

They can be. Each sitting day includes short debates - often initiated by a member’s question - lasting around 10 minutes each. I got to sit in on a few sessions where topics ranged from financial policies to Grenfell Tower-related issues. It was a privilege to witness those discussions live.

The Earl of Courtown, who I was shadowing, has a long-standing interest in science policy and has also served in government, under John Major. He’s now a Deputy Whip, which means he helps coordinate voting and provides guidance and support to fellow Conservative peers. It reminded me a bit of leading a research department - part strategy, part pastoral care.

What does a typical day look like for a peer?

It’s surprisingly variable. They often find out only a few hours in advance what topics will be debated, which means they must prepare quickly. A day might involve attending debates, sitting on committees, or meeting with other peers. 

On one of the evenings, we went to a drinks reception behind Westminster overlooking the Thames. While we were there, we could hear the division bell ringing - signalling votes going on - well into the evening. That’s apparently quite common. 

Do Lords work full-time?

They can. They’re not salaried but get paid per sitting day. For many, it’s a full-time job and a serious commitment. I hadn't appreciated how significant a time commitment it is.

Were you able to contribute directly?

Not during the debates. Visitors are required to sit quietly - there’s a lot of emphasis on making sure your phone is off! But I did have a chance to speak with the Shadow Health Peer in the House of Lords about an upcoming vote on tobacco and vaping legislation. As a clinician scientist in respiratory medicine, this is especially important to me given that one in five of the UK population lives with lung disease, conditions that often impact the most deprived in society.

I also hadn’t realised but UK residents and overseas visitors are allowed to just turn up on the day to sit in the House of Commons or the House of Lords, to listen to the policies being discussed.

Would you recommend this program to other scientists?

Definitely. It was eye-opening. What really struck me was how eager people in Westminster are to engage with scientists. They have to make decisions on a huge range of issues, and they genuinely value expert input to help guide those decisions. 

There are also opportunities for members of the public, including academics, to submit expert evidence to parliamentary committees - you don’t need to be invited. I had no idea that was even possible before this week.

Final thoughts?

The experience left me with a deeper appreciation for how science and policy can, and should, interact. There's a real opportunity here for scientists to contribute to UK policy in a meaningful way. I’d absolutely encourage others to get involved.