Sir

I greatly enjoyed your recent leading article on “Flawed understanding of the scientific process”, with its thoughtful emphasis on science as a continually evolving path to better understanding rather than a set of certainties (Nature 388607; 607; 1997).

Your leading article was set against the background of recent controversies in the United States and in France. I think there are, however, interesting resonances between the principles you set out and those that underpin the UK government's document The Use of Scientific Advice in Policy Making (DTI/Pub 2808/0.5k/5/ 97/RP. http://www.dti.gov.uk).

This document was prepared by the Office of Science and Technology for the previous government, and strongly endorsed by the present Minister for Science, Energy and Industry, John Battle, in his speech to the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee on 10 July: “Involve at least some experts from other, not necessarily scientific, disciplines, to ensure that the evidence is subjected to a sufficiently questioning review from a wide ranging set of viewpoints; [and] ensure that data relating to the issue are made available as early as possible to the scientific community to enable a wide range of research groups to tackle the issue. Scientific advance thrives on openness and competition of ideas.”

Robert M. May Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government, Office of Science and Technology, Albany House, 94-98 Petty France, London SW1H 9ST, UK