In the complex arena of sustainable policy transformation, the role of scientific evidence is often assumed to be pivotal. However, recent research focusing on the Swiss pesticide policymaking landscape challenges this perception, revealing a more nuanced reality where scientific data plays a limited yet deeply contested role. This fresh qualitative analysis sheds light on the intricate dynamics between evidence, competing actor coalitions, and policy evolution within the agri-food sector, offering profound insights into how science intersects with politics and institutional interests.
The study examines the Swiss case where pesticide regulation aimed at pollution reduction has been a focal point for policy transformation debates. Contradicting widespread expectations, researchers found that scientific evidence seldom surfaced explicitly in public policy arguments. Only a handful of carefully selected pieces of evidence gained salience, meaning that science does not act as the dominant catalyst in driving substantial policy changes. This finding invites a reconsideration of the assumed linear relationship between knowledge production and policymaking efficacy, pointing toward a far more complex interplay.
Central to understanding this dynamic is the analytical framework drawing on the ‘3i’s’—ideas, interests, and institutions—which serve as lenses through which the use and contestation of scientific evidence can be interpreted. Actor coalitions involved in the pesticide policy debate selectively wield scientific insights to buttress their predefined agendas. These groups strategically align evidence with their ideological convictions, economic stakes, and institutional frameworks, either advocating for stricter regulatory measures or resisting intensified controls. The interplay of these elements underscores that evidence is not merely neutral data, but a resource embedded within power struggles and political narratives.
Intriguingly, the analysis uncovers that the framing of scientific evidence encompassing environmental sustainability, social implications such as farmers’ hardships, and economic concerns like food security possess the potential to build bridges between opposing coalitions. Yet, while such comprehensive perspectives exist, the policy discourse remains fragmented, reflecting deep contestations over how evidence should be interpreted and prioritized. This landscape complicates the policymaking process, as consensus building becomes a daunting challenge in the presence of competing value systems and institutional inertia.
Another revealing aspect of the study is the identification of what may be termed ‘shallow or tense post-exceptionalism’. This concept describes a policy context where traditional regimes appear either stubbornly unchanged or precariously balanced between outdated structures and emerging ideas. Within such ambivalent settings, scientific evidence fails to provide unequivocal policy guidance or narrow down the policy options effectively. Instead, conflicting interpretations of evidence perpetuate uncertainty and stall decisive action, highlighting the limitations of science as an arbiter in politically charged environments.
The implications of these findings extend beyond the immediate sector of agri-food policy. Many other domains characterized by entrenched socio-technical systems—from carbon-intensive energy technologies to plastic waste management—face analogous challenges. The persistence of lock-ins, where established interests and institutional arrangements hamper transformative change, suggests that scientific evidence alone rarely triggers policy revolution. Rather, it is the sociopolitical contexts surrounding evidence production and utilization that crucially shape transformation trajectories.
Recognizing these complexities, the authors advocate for expanded research that delves deeper into the mechanisms that render certain pieces of scientific evidence salient and contested. Understanding the attributes that elevate specific data to prominence or engender dispute is key to improving the strategic deployment of knowledge. Such inquiry could illuminate why some evidence frames resonate widely while others are marginalized, thereby informing smarter communication and engagement strategies among policymakers, scientists, and stakeholders alike.
Moreover, the study highlights the importance of incorporating policy instrument choice into the analysis of scientific evidence use. Agencies do not merely argue about facts but also about how evidence translates into regulations, incentives, or bans. Exploring this dimension can shed light on how evidence becomes entangled with debates on the design and implementation of policy tools, a critical factor that was beyond the initial scope but remains ripe for investigation in contexts of post-exceptionalism.
The research approach also opens avenues for cross-national comparative studies. Countries such as Germany, the United Kingdom, Canada, the United States, and institutions like the European Union, all with histories of post-exceptionalist policies in agriculture and beyond, offer fertile ground for examining how scientific evidence is mobilized and contested internationally. Such comparative insights can uncover patterns, divergences, and best practices, potentially fostering more effective global governance strategies for sustainability transitions.
Another fertile domain for future exploration lies in understanding the roles of actors outside traditional policymaking circles. The media, citizen groups, and public administrations contribute significantly to how scientific evidence is interpreted and integrated into policy debates. Their perspectives, often shaped by differing values and informational access, influence which evidence gains traction and how it informs collective decision-making processes. Investigating these actors’ contributions could enhance models of deliberative democracy, emphasizing inclusive argumentation and broader societal engagement.
Beyond the question of salience and contestation, there lies the intriguing possibility of studying combinations of evidence use. For instance, contrasting instances where evidence is uncontested with those where it is highly contested may reveal distinct pathways through which consensus is forged or fragmented. Such research holds promise for clarifying the conditions under which scientific knowledge stabilizes policy regimes and when it becomes a source of conflict and division.
Importantly, the study’s insights extend well beyond agriculture and environmental protection. Other public policy sectors, including education, healthcare, housing, and pensions, also display characteristics of partial transformations influenced by enduring policy legacies. In these spheres, a more nuanced understanding of how scientific evidence is both leveraged and resisted can support smarter policy interventions aimed at incremental yet impactful reforms. Integrating a political lens into evidence use enhances realism in assessing pathways toward social welfare improvements.
The political embedding of scientific evidence emerges as a crucial consideration. Scientific data does not float in a vacuum but is deeply intertwined with power relations, institutional configurations, and normative commitments. Recognizing this embeddedness challenges naïve assumptions about evidence-based policymaking and calls for more reflexive approaches that account for contestation, ambiguity, and strategic framing. Such reflexivity is essential for scholars, policymakers, and practitioners who seek to harness science without oversimplifying complex political landscapes.
This study thus represents a pioneering contribution to scholarship at the intersection of science, policy, and sustainability. Its empirical grounding in a rigorous qualitative case study, combined with theoretical clarity regarding ideas, interests, and institutions, provides a robust framework for analyzing scientific evidence’s contested role in policymaking. The insights gleaned push forward debates about how to foster transformative change amid entrenched structures and divergent stakeholder perspectives.
Ultimately, the journey toward sustainable transformation necessitates more than accumulating scientific knowledge; it demands sophisticated political acumen and strategic communication. By illuminating the contested terrain of evidence use, this research equips advocates for sustainability with a clearer map of the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. As global crises of environmental degradation and social inequality intensify, nuanced understandings of how science interacts with policy will be indispensable to catalyzing meaningful change.
As the authors propose, future investigations that extend this line of inquiry could empower policymakers and civil society actors to better navigate the fraught landscape of contested knowledge. Through capturing subtleties of evidence salience, actor interactions, and institutional constraints, these studies can provide actionable guidance for fostering durable, inclusive, and effective policy transformation across diverse sectors and geographies.
Subject of Research:
Scientific evidence use in sustainable transformation debates, focusing on pesticide policymaking in Switzerland and its implications for policy transformation in agri-food systems.
Article Title:
Salient and Contested Scientific Evidence in Debates over Sustainable Transformation: Pesticide Policymaking in Switzerland
Article References:
Truffer, O., Hofmann, B. & Lieberherr, E. Salient and contested scientific evidence in debates over sustainable transformation: pesticide policymaking in Switzerland.
Humanit Soc Sci Commun 12, 1022 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05159-2
Image Credits: AI Generated
