The evidence to policy process is a black box. The new Policymakers Lab is trying to fix that by creating a global network of public servants to generate evidence-driven insights for policymaking.
Over the past few decades, researchers and policymakers have produced a strong body of evidence on policy interventions that are effective for improving lives. However, we know less about how policymakers engage with this evidence and use the knowledge produced by academics to make policy decisions. The Policymakers Lab, founded by Mattie Toma at the University of Warwick, aims to help bridge this gap. The lab identifies policymakers from around the world interested in participating in surveys developed by academics to generate evidence on topics such as:
- How can we effectively communicate research evidence to policymakers?
- What types of academic research are policymakers most interested in?
- What tools can help with difficult policy decisions and the use of evidence in policymaking?
What is the Policymakers Lab?
The lab is a network of policymakers from 16 countries worldwide and counting. The role of policymaker is broadly construed, including current and former civil servants and elected officials, at both national and local levels.
Policymakers who sign up to participate in the lab consent to receive invitations to short surveys developed by academics. Participation in the lab provides policymakers with the chance to directly contribute to the generation of research knowledge relevant to the work they do. In addition, policymakers in the lab receive:
- Early access to research findings and toolkits developed for policymakers (policy briefs through the lab address policymaker perceptions and engagement with evidence).
- Opportunities to connect with academic researchers and shape the scope of future research and funding by sharing their perspectives.
- Small incentives or opportunities to donate to charity as a token of gratitude for survey participation.
The Policymakers Lab is covered by the University of Warwick’s ethics board and therefore adheres to strict confidentiality requirements; all data collected through the lab is protected through this policy.
If you are a policymaker (broadly construed!) and might be interested in participating in the lab, please complete the brief onboarding survey here: Policymakers Lab Sign Up Link.
What have we learned so far?
Recent research with policymakers as subjects has begun to shed light on how policymakers engage with research evidence, and what they value most from the data being generated. For instance, Vivalt and Coville (2023) find that policymakers update more about good news (asymmetric optimism) and are relatively insensitive to confidence intervals (variance neglect) when learning about research evidence. Consistent with this, Banuri et al (2019) show that canonical behavioral biases, including confirmation bias and loss aversion, can be identified in policymaker decision-making. A related body of work identifies the attributes of research evidence and those communicating the evidence – e.g. large sample sizes and communications from sources with aligned ideologies – that policymakers most value when making policy adoption decisions (e.g., Garcia-Hombrados et al. 2024, Hjort et al. 2021, Nakajima 2021, Vivalt et al. 2025).
Other research points to tools that can support policy decision-making: Toma and Bell (2024) find that relatively simple decision aids – presenting comparison information about programmes side-by-side and aggregating multiple features of impact into a single metric – can increase policymakers’ sensitivity to features of evidence relevant to programme impact. Other work suggests targeted communications of evidence to relevant policymakers or even collaborations between research and policy communities can be effective in promoting evidence use in policy decisions (Crowley et al. 2021, Hjort et al. 2021).[1]
The Policymakers Lab was established last year with the aim of facilitating more research like this.
The first study through the lab (Thaler et al. 2025) explores researchers’ choice of using language versus numbers when communicating evidence to policymakers, who are tasked with predicting the effect of a policy intervention based on these communications. They find that when researchers are incentivised to persuade policymakers they are more likely to use (slanted) language, relative to when they are simply seeking to communicate accurately. This work seeks to raise awareness among policymakers when interpreting science communications.
Future projects through the lab
GiveWell, a non-profit that predominantly funds health programs in low-income countries, is interested in using the lab to run research projects to help inform its grantmaking decisions. Most of their $300m+ annual portfolio is geared towards supporting non-governmental organizations to deliver health commodities directly to vulnerable populations. They would like to better understand how policymakers view these types of ‘vertical’ health programmes – including how they interact with government programming, and whether they have any unintended consequences on planning decisions or state capacity.
Another project that is currently underway in the lab (joint between Matthew Ridley and Mattie Toma) seeks to understand what policymakers value from research evidence, and how they would like this evidence communicated to them.
References
Banuri, S, S Dercon, and V Gauri (2019), “Biased policy professionals,” The World Bank Economic Review, 33(2): 310–327.
Crowley, D M, et al. (2021), “Lawmakers’ use of scientific evidence can be improved,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9): e2012955118.
García-Hombrados, J, M Jansen, Á Martínez, B Özcan, P Rey-Biel, and A Roldán-Monés (2024), “Ideological alignment and evidence-based policy adoption,” IZA Discussion Paper No. 17007, IZA Institute of Labor Economics.
Hjort, J, D Moreira, G Rao, and J F Santini (2021), “How research affects policy: Experimental evidence from 2,150 Brazilian municipalities,” American Economic Review, 111(5): 1442–1480.
Nakajima, N (2021), “Evidence-based decisions and education policymakers,” Unpublished manuscript.
Thaler, M, M Toma, and V Y Wang (2025), “Numbers tell, words sell,” CESifo Working Paper.
Toma, M, and E Bell (2024), “Understanding and increasing policymakers’ sensitivity to program impact,” Journal of Public Economics, 234: 105096.
Vivalt, E, and A Coville (2023), “How do policymakers update their beliefs?” Journal of Development Economics, 165: 103121.
Vivalt, E, A Coville, and S KC (2025), “Local knowledge, formal evidence, and policy decisions,” Journal of Development Economics, 174: 103425.