Interesting discussion about 18 minutes into BBC More or Less with Tim Harford
More or Less - How long does it take to turn around an oil tanker? - BBC Sounds
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0022skjGlobal Evidence Report
A Blueprint for Better International Collaboration on Evidence
David Halpern Deelan Maru
A Blueprint for Better International Collaboration on Evidence | The Behavioural Insights Team (bi.team)
https://www.bi.team/publications/international-collaboration-evidence/Summary
“Governments collectively spend trillions on public services. Despite this, surprisingly little is known on what works across most areas of public spending. Alongside this, R&D spending by governments across most areas of spending, with the exception of health and defence, are incredibly low. For the U.S., UK, Australia and Canada, the implied research gap is c.$100 billion per annum.
Given the scarcity of good evidence, there are enormous gains to be had from leveraging the existing evidence better, and collaborating to build more. There are overlapping common interests and questions (e.g. how best to screen cancer, the best way to teach a child to read and write, and how to reduce recidivism). This report, commissioned by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), provides a blueprint for how these overlapping interests can be jointly addressed within the global evidence ecosystem. Developed by BIT and Nesta, with participation from the U.S., UK, Australian and Canadian governments, the blueprint offers practical recommendations for improving international collaboration on evidence.
Key recommendations
Our main recommendation is for countries to collaborate on evidence synthesis. The most promising avenue for evidence synthesis is Living Evidence Reviews (LERs), which are systematic reviews that are continuously updated. We propose that ‘meta’ LERs are conducted across all areas of social policy to answer the questions that really matter to policymakers.
“Globally, it may be helpful for countries to join forces in producing systematic reviews and identifying evidence gaps. One proposal, currently being shaped by David Halpern and Deelan Maru, proposes that a handful of likeminded governments join forces to produce better systematic reviews and avoid duplication (Halpern and Maru, 2024)… Like the Cochrane Collaboration and the Campbell Collaboration, such an approach can help expand our knowledge of what works, and put a spotlight on the areas where more evidence is needed.”
• Establish a Shared Evaluation Fund across partner countries to ensure evaluation of promising interventions
• Promote standardised reporting and publication protocols to facilitate inter-governmental sharing of evaluated interventions
• Conduct evidence gap maps across priority policy areas to obtain an overarching view of the state of the evidence
• Prioritise the synthesis of this evidence into high-quality, comprehensive reviews, or meta-Living Evidence Reviews (meta-LERs)
• Strengthen international public service professional networks to accelerate the transfer and adoption of best practices across countries
• Conduct research into effective translation and adoption, or ‘metascience’, to accelerate the transfer of evidence into policy and practice
Delivery options
A Minimum Viable Product (MVP) version, focusing solely on improvements to the quality of secondary evidence, could be delivered for $11-22 million. This would test the feasibility of evidence maps and meta-LERs, and establish a collaborative platform for funding. More intensive versions, allowing for improvements to primary evidence and adoption, could be delivered for $30-196m.
These amounts may seem high, but they pale in comparison to the amount spent on public services. Redirecting services to those that are proven effective through evidence would likely yield savings many times the value of the upfront investment.
This blueprint is a call to action for governments to collaborate more closely on evidence generation and utilisation. By pooling resources and expertise, countries can bridge the existing gaps in their evidence ecosystems, ultimately leading to more informed and effective public policies. This collaborative effort promises not only financial savings but also broader societal benefits through improved public service delivery.”
