I made a few notes:
- Present in a nutshell the implications of research for policy
- Explain what and why some modelling, calculations have been done. Guide policy makers through the logic. Do not baffle them with complicated statistics
- Do not present all of the work you have done. Many times it will help much more to just say that your peers have endorsed you.
- Focus on the impact of your work on people and society, not on scientific details
- Always ask ‘So what?’
- Do not speak about what you think is interesting, but speak about things that are important to decision making
- Do not duplicate other work when you do not have to! Use existing data, analysis etc. and invest in connecting the dots.
- Design and optimise modes of communication. Beware of death by ppt... (Despite the fact that everyone knows the term, my perception is that it is getting worse)
- Be clear on the investment cost of projects/programme in relation to societal benefits. Do not emphasise costs only.
- Generalise from specific studies in a responsible way. Neither jump to conclusions, nor be willing to take some risk. An educated expert opinion is still much better then an uneducated guess.
This is just a rough, personal account. There are many more excellent resources on how to improve the science-policy interface. I recommend Prof Pielke's book The Honest Broker as a good place to start.