You describe a new UK Ministry of Defence programme, in a News story (Nature 462, 151; 2009), as being modelled on its US counterpart, the JASONs: this is an independent group of scientific advisers with high-level security clearance who have consulted for the US government on technical problems since the cold war. As a member of the JASONs for more than a decade, I note that several organizational aspects are crucially different.

First, the British government intends to finance research in the laboratories of members of their advisory group in order to follow up on ideas that they generate. Second, most members won't have security clearance. Third, members will not be self-selected, but will be appointed by the government. Fourth, the membership will be rotated frequently according to topic.

In my opinion, these differences detract from the usefulness of the UK enterprise. Lack of clearance discourages members from bringing up relevant issues, and will hobble security-related work generally. Controversial conclusions of reports could be dismissed by government officials with the all-too-familiar refrain: “You wouldn't advise that if you knew what we know.”

Also, the group stands to forfeit independence because the government will select scientists according to its own criteria, which tend to include political expediency in addition to competence. They risk losing credibility within the scientific community for the same reason. When members are funded to pursue projects at their home institutions, it raises conflict-of-interest issues. And rotating the membership will prevent the organization from ever developing a true 'corporate memory'.

As an organization, the JASONs have earned credibility on a wide range of security-related topics over the years. The long-standing working relationships forged among the JASON members rank among its most significant strengths. The lack of direct professional ties to government sponsors fosters impartiality. The collective experience gained from working on so many different kinds of problem, combined with the individual credentials of its scientifically diverse membership, make the JASONs one of the few government advisory groups that can plausibly be called independent.