Rebuilding confidence in science and science advice
Sir Robert May
Chief Scientific Adviser, UK government
'The authors of the draft Declaration and Framework for Action have focussed on developing policies for science. But it is also important to give adequate attention to building science into policies'
The World Conference on Science, which opens in Budapest in Saturday, takes place at a time when the pace of scientific development is creating a level of concern among the public that is leading in some cases to suspicion and mistrust of science. To change this, the public must have confidence in the way that science advice feeds into policy making, so that policies can be developed that take account of the benefits and opportunities that stem from advances in scientific knowledge, as well as the potential risks.
Furthermore, as political and social decision-making comes to involve increasingly complex problems with global consequences, the previous concept of scientific communication as a one-way flow of information from experts to the public needs to be changed. Scientific specialists should join with others in open and wide-ranging consultations that identify - rather than exclude - particular interests and conflicts of interest, and place them in a broader perspective.
Indeed, the fact that both science itself, and the major issues that science and technology address, are becoming increasingly international means that such issues need to be tackled co-operatively by all nations. Expertise and data will need to be pooled, especially on issues that are global in scale,
The implications of the current shift from 'producer-led' to 'user-led' policies for science also require consideration. Britain is addressing this through strong practical policies on issues such as the way that scientific advice is used to inform policy decisions within government, the promotion of greater public understanding of science, and the building of an effective dialogue on science and technology between the scientific community, and government and business, for example through our Foresight programme.
A new Ministerial Science Group now ensures that science, engineering and technology are taken into account in the development of all aspects of government policy. Its activities are supplemented by a cross-departmental cabinet committee, made up of chief scientists from individual departments, which co-ordinates policy at the official level.
But the increasingly influential role played by the science in the formulation of both national and international policy, as well as in regulatory decisions, needs wider recognition. The authors of the draft Declaration and Framework for Action appear to have focussed on developing policies for science. It is also important to ensure that adequate attention is given to the task of building science into policies.
To achieve this, governments should develop procedures - based on the principles of good knowledge-assessment practice - for incorporating scientific advice into policy making. They should establish ways of enabling the early anticipation and identification of issues for which specific scientific advice or research will be needed, particularly those that are potentially sensitive.
Governments should be able to draw on a range of expert sources, both external and internal, and involve them in framing and assessing policy options. To take account of the increasing internationalization of science, experts from other countries or international advisory mechanisms should, wherever possible, be involved. This is particularly important where other countries have experience of, or may be affected by, the issue being considered.
Of course, policies can only be established on the basis of the best available advice at the time. But further evidence may emerge which raises questions about previous policy decisions. Governments therefore need to be able to respond dynamically to the changing scientific environment. They should systemically review priorities in order to ascertain whether funding needs to be directed to programmes of further research that may illuminate identifiable areas of uncertainty.
In addition, the scientific advice behind all relevant policies should be published, wherever possible in a manner accessible to non-scientists. All policies should be compatible with the available evidence, and be seen to have been formulated in an open, objective manner. Governments should also, therefore, review their current practices to ensure that they have taken the necessary actions to create an open, objective, transparent system for handling scientific advice in bringing knowledge to bear on policy.
The challenge for the Budapest conference is to focus on reaching practical proposals on these and other issues. It must not fall into the trap of setting over-ambitious objectives, and whatever emerges should be of practical value, clearly identifying the extent and cost implications of any commitments reached.
Implementing elements of the Framework for Action as it currently stands could lead to the creation of unnecessarily duplicative follow-up groups. Given the diverse aspirations, responsibilities, priorities and resources of the various participants, however, it is unlikely that any participant - whether government, individual or organization - will attempt everything that is being set out in the Framework. Rather they are likely to adopt a piecemeal approach, a bit like selecting from a menu.
The task of those participating in the Budapest meeting is to ensure that this menu is both tasty and nutritious. This is in line with the view of both UNESCO and ICSU that the Framework for Action should be seen primarily as a strategic document, rather than a definite commitment to particular actions. It is also in line with my own view that the conference should, ideally, provide a platform from which participants may embark on their own journeys of scientific development and cooperation.
 |  |  |  |
Nature © Macmillan Publishers Ltd 1999 Registered No. 785998 England.