Innosphere Consulting
Specialist in translating complex scientific and technological advancements into clear, actionable policy recommendations and real-world applications for decision-makers.
ID: 104106497353-22
Lobbying Activity
Response to Citizens energy package – protecting and empowering consumers in the just transition
2 Sept 2025
I welcome the European Commissions continued commitment to advancing the Citizens Energy Package as a cornerstone of a just and inclusive transition. Having worked as both a policymaker and a researcher, I have seen firsthand how the integration of robust evidence and policy insight can accelerate meaningful change. During my tenure as Chairperson of the Irish Parliamentary Committee on Social Protection, Community and Rural Development and the Islands, I led hearings and produced reports that placed energy poverty at the heart of social justice debates. These experiences highlighted not only the multidimensional nature of energy poverty spanning income, housing quality, rural isolation and health impacts, but also the transformative power of well-targeted interventions. For example, Irelands experience with retrofitting programmes demonstrated significant reductions in household energy costs, while a pioneering pilot I oversaw linked energy efficiency upgrades to measurable improvements in public health outcomes, independently evaluated by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. Evidence such as this shows how energy and social policy can work in tandem to improve lives, reduce hospital admissions, and strengthen resilience. What has become clear to me is that bridging the gap between research and decision-making is no longer optional, it is essential. Too often, valuable academic insights remain underutilised in shaping practical solutions. Denis Naughten denis@innosphereconsulting.org
Read full responseResponse to European Research Area (ERA) Act
21 Aug 2025
As a former MP and minister, I have seen first-hand how policy rises or falls on the strength of its evidence base. I believe that Europe does not lack research but what it lacks the sustained engagement between the research community and decision-makers that turns evidence into action. The ERA Act, if it is to succeed, must bridge this gap that has persisted for too long. Over the past two decades the EU as a whole has repeatedly failed to reach its 3% of GDP target for R&D investment. One reason is that those holding the purse strings, at both national and EU level, are not convinced they are seeing sufficient return on their investment. This is not solely a question of scientific merit or commercial spin-offs, it is also about visibility in the policymaking process. When research outputs fail to flow into parliamentary debates, ministerial briefs, and legislative drafting, the value of that investment is obscured. If decision-makers do not see research reflected in the choices they make, why should they increase funding, when there are an endless number of competing demands? That is why I believe the ERA Act must explicitly promote structured, institutional engagement between researchers and elected representatives. Research needs pathways to policy impact instead of being buried in academic publications, which unfortunately is the current measure of success. Why are research careers determined by citations in academic journals, not citations in parliamentary reports or policy papers? Too often funding criteria ignore whether researchers have engaged with parliaments or ministries to ensure their work is informing real-world decisions. As we know Europe today faces protracted, complex challenges like climate change, energy insecurity, artificial intelligence and migration; all multidimensional, politically charged challenges, with no single solution. They demand transdisciplinary engagement and integrated knowledge. Yet our current systems offer few forums for this kind of exchange between scientists and legislators. In the absence of such institutionalised dialogue, governments lean on costly external consultancies which hollows out state capacity, undermines accountability, and disconnects policy from the deep well of evidence our universities and research centres provide. The Commissions call rightly highlights barriers to mobility, career attractiveness, and open science. But without tackling the political interface, the engagement between research and decision-makers, I believe that we will not deliver the ERAs promise. We need mechanisms that require ministries, parliaments and the Commission itself to reference and acknowledge research sources in their policy proposals. We need incentives for researchers to engage with policymakers, not penalties in the form of overlooked career advancement. And we need transparency in how evidence is used, so that our citizens can see that their public institutions are guided by facts, not ideology or expediency. History tells us that populism flourishes when the centre fails to deliver and evidence-informed policy is our best defence. In an age where misinformation spreads faster than peer-reviewed evidence, transparently embedding research into the legislative process is a democratic safeguard. It demonstrates to citizens that their leaders are guided by knowledge, not guesswork. It strengthens the political centre by showing that solutions are both fair and practical. This is how we can build and maintain trust. Alongside the fifth freedom of movement for researchers and knowledge, we must I believe create a freedom of circulation for evidence into political decision-making. That means breaking down institutional barriers, investing in integrated evidence systems, and supporting parliaments and ministers to co-produce solutions with the research community. Denis Naughten denis@InnoSphereConsulting.org
Read full response