By Linda Lammensalo – Fellow at The Centre for Evaluation of Complexity Across the Nexus (CECAN)
Robust policymaking requires managing epistemic uncertainty, that is, understanding what evidence decisions are built upon, what uncertainties accompany it, and where critical knowledge gaps lie.
Traditional expert consultations, following the question-and-answer logic of science advice, respond to questions policymakers already know to ask. But what if the questions are wrong or built on flawed assumptions?
Science Sparring employs policy red teaming
To respond to these challenges, we at the Finnish Academy of Science and Letters have co-developed, together with ministries, a knowledge brokering model called Science Sparring. It is inspired by red teaming, which has been used in intelligence and foresight (Zhang & Gronwall, 2020). The idea is that a multidisciplinary group of researchers review and comment on early policy drafts from the perspective of scientific evidence and expertise.
The Science Sparring model invites researchers to challenge policymakers’ evidence base and to surface the assumptions policymakers were unaware they were making.
Using systems thinking to develop the model methodologically
Having organised and developed the Science Sparring model for a few years, I felt we needed fresh perspectives. That is why I was eager to become a CECAN Policy Fellow and learn from seasoned systems thinkers and policy evaluators. We knew what we were doing worked, but I feel like we did not fully understand how to make it work better.
I came to the fellowship with specific questions: How can we more systematically reveal critical blind spots in policy development? And what systems thinking tools could strengthen our approach? The fellowship fundamentally changed how I think about these questions, and in some cases, revealed they were the wrong questions entirely.
Articulating a Theory of Change
My first conversations with my CECAN mentors exposed the gap: I could describe what Science Sparring does, but had not fully articulated how it creates impact. I was encouraged to build a theory of change for the model.
The process itself proved to be helpful. It forced the identification of leverage points. For example, it revealed that institutional champions, embedded within each ministry, have been critical to sustainability and the model’s uptake. It also clarified that the model must remain adaptable; the science-policy ecosystem itself evolves, and overly rigid methods become obsolete.
Colleagues subsequently “red teamed” the theory of change itself, which validated this emphasis on adaptive structure.
Uncovering Hidden Assumptions
During the fellowship, I explored how different systems thinking tools could help uncover the assumptions underlying policy drafts. One avenue was developing theories of change for policy proposals and, through that, making explicit the causal logic behind them. The thinking was that once those assumptions are visible, they can be questioned and scrutinised in the Science Sparring setting.
In October 2025, we organised a Science Sparring on Finland’s preparedness for the potential collapse of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), the ocean current system regulating Europe’s climate. This scenario involves profound uncertainty: there’s no scientific consensus on whether the AMOC will collapse, and if so, when.
We followed our established approach, mapping anticipated impacts and red teaming assumptions about climate disruption, food security, and infrastructure resilience, among others. However, afterwards I started to question myself, and think whether we had taken the wrong approach. We were building elaborate causal chains on radical uncertainty, essentially creating false precision about an inherently unpredictable future.
In hindsight, I learned that perhaps a more insightful framing would have been to identify where the system is already vulnerable, rather than predict what will happen. The more productive question could have been: “Where does Finland’s preparedness currently assume climate stability?” This reframing would have shifted the focus from impact forecasting to vulnerability and risk mapping. It would have helped to identify the greatest risks and identify weaknesses that need addressing, whether AMOC collapses or some other climate disruptions emerge.
Going forward
After this fellowship, I’m convinced that the value of policy red teaming lies in revealing risks and side costs associated with policies before decisions are made. The facilitated, goal-oriented dialogue format enables researchers to raise challenges and gaps in policy preparation directly, creating space for real-time discussion of alternatives.
The positive feedback we have received from the ministries and participants proves that we are on the right track and Science Sparring can deliver. Finland’s previous Government Report on the Future recommended its wider adoption in ministries’ policy preparation processes. Internationally, it has been recognised as a promising knowledge brokering method (Nature, 2024).
Like any methodology, Science Sparring continues to evolve. We are currently exploring with Aalto University how AI can enhance facilitation and provide more robust critique during policy development. But refinement alone is not simply enough. The critical challenge for us now is how to scale the model and establish its legitimacy across different decision-making contexts.
Inspired by the CECAN Fellowship, we have now started our very own Science Sparring Masterclass this spring, in the hopes of training more knowledge brokers to use the model in different contexts. The hope is that this is just a starting point for a more permanent collaborative knowledge brokering network.
Ultimately, we aim for Science Sparring and other knowledge brokering models to bring about a cultural shift in how evidence informs policy.
If you are interested in exploring Science Sparring for your context, please feel free to get in touch:
Linda Lammensalo
Knowledge Broker, Finnish Academy of Science and Letters
I would like to sincerely thank my mentors, Pete Barbrook-Johnson and Martha Bicket, for their guidance, and the whole CECAN Fellowship team for a wonderful experience.
Cover image by Aleksi Kylmälahti / Finnish Academy of Science and Letters, used with permission.