What's in a name? That's one of the questions political leaders have to consider when they allocate titles to, and divisions between, government departments. The process is echoed when parliaments or other representative bodies set up committees to keep an eye on the activities of those departments.

Every nation has its own approach to this, and some parliaments, including those of France and Germany, struggle to exercise much oversight at all. The UK House of Commons and the US House of Representatives have each, in very different circumstances, evolved committees that look expressly at science and technology questions. These committees perform a valuable role. By virtue of their very names, as well as their briefs, their remit centres on scientific and technological facts. Their staff and their members tend, on the whole, to be interested in such facts. These days, with the 'reality-based community' under steady attack from those who prefer to base their positions on dogma rather than on hard information, that's a rare blessing.

It is true that other committees, which sometimes have more heft, also consider issues related to science and technology. The Committee on Energy and Commerce in the House of Representatives and the Defence Committee at Westminster, for example, are both highly influential. There is an argument that discourse on scientific questions is best conducted where it matters most. But the reality in these more heavily politicized surroundings is that such discourse often does not take place at all.

It has been reported that the British government would like to wind up the Select Committee on Science and Technology and place its responsibilities in a new committee with a wider remit, dealing also with education and innovation, in line with an ongoing reorganization of the government's own departments (see page 236). This plan is doubly troubling because in Britain, where parliamentary committees are young and not especially powerful, the executive branch of the government can dictate the committee portfolios. Gordon Brown, the new prime minister, can informally tell the Leader of the House what is to be done, and it will happen.

It just seems too convenient that the science and technology select committee sometimes sheds light on inconvenient truths (such as the technical feasibility of politically attractive schemes for identity cards). There is no requirement — procedural, constitutional or in terms of precedent — for select committees to map directly on to particular government departments. If Brown wants intelligent and proactive oversight by parliament, as he has professed to do in his first few days in office, he should leave the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology well alone.