Scientific Advice for Policy Making – The Role and Responsibility of Expert Bodies and Individual Scientists
OECD
20 Apr 2015 :: 50 pages :: PDF
DOI: 10.1787/5js33l1jcpwb-en
Abstract
The scientific community is increasingly being called upon to provide evidence and advice to government policy-makers across a range of issues, from short-term public health emergencies through to longer-term challenges, such as population ageing or climate change. Such advice can be a valuable, or even essential, input to sound policy-making but its impact depends on how it is formulated and communicated as well as how it is perceived by its target policy audience and by other interested parties.

It is rare that scientific evidence is the only consideration in a policy decision and, particularly for complex issues; many interests may have to be balanced in situations where the science itself may be uncertain. The rapid evolution of information and communication technologies and moves towards more participative democratic decision-making have put additional pressure on science to help provide answers and solutions, whilst also opening up the academic enterprise to closer surveillance and criticism.

What used to be ‘private’ debates between different scientific viewpoints over areas of uncertainty have now become public disputes that can be exploited by different stakeholders to confirm or deny entrenched positions. Science is truly at the centre of many important policy issues and scientists are increasingly visible and, in many cases, increasingly vulnerable, in policy-making processes.

Overview
Drawing on the analysis of different advisory systems, their exposure to legal risks and the particular requirements of crisis situations, Scientific Advice for Policy Making identifies three key factors that are particularly important in determining the success or failure of a science advisory process:
:: Have a clear remit, with defined roles and responsibilities for its various actors.
:: Involve the relevant actors – scientists, policy makers and other stakeholders, as necessary.
:: Produce advice that is sound, unbiased and legitimate.

As governments and scientific bodies strive to improve mechanisms for the provision and communication of scientific advice, the report proposes the following:
:: Governments and responsible institutions should define clear and transparent guidelines and rules of procedure for their science advisory processes and mechanisms.
:: Governments should establish mechanisms for ensuring appropriate and timely advice in crises.
:: Governments should work with international organisations to ensure coherence between national and international scientific advisory mechanisms relating to complex global challenges.
:: Governments and responsible institutions should implement measures that build societal trust in science advice for policy making.

.

Press Release: OECD calls for common principles for developing and communicating scientific advice
23/04/2015 – Governments would benefit from agreeing common principles for developing and communicating scientific advice, both in crisis situations and for long-term policymaking, according to a new OECD report. In light of recent controversies around science advice, the report proposes a checklist for countries to follow to ensure science advisory processes are effective and trustworthy.

Scientific Advice for Policymaking: The Role and Responsibility of Expert Bodies and Individual Scientists cites examples of recent events where science advice has been called into question, including the Ebola crisis, the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster and the 2009 earthquake at L’Aquila in Italy.

The report says governments need to clearly define the remit of scientific advice, by demarcating advisory roles from policy decision-making roles, and defining from the outset the legal responsibilities and potential liability of advisors. The scientific advisory process should also seek to mitigate controversies by introducing procedures to declare and verify conflicts of interest and by explicitly determining how to engage participation from non-scientists and civil society.

“If we want science to help answer the complex and controversial questions being asked by policymakers, the media and the public, we need scientific advice to be effective, transparent and legitimate,” said OECD Director of Science, Technology and Innovation Andrew Wyckoff. “This new set of principles is designed to help governments create the conditions for scientific advice to be used to improve policy-making across a range of areas.”

The report, produced by the OECD Global Science Forum, examines the fallout from disconnected science advice from one country to another and the risks of contradictory national positions. It finds that in today’s inter-connected world, where social media and the Internet can drive much faster and louder reactions to events like natural disasters or epidemics, and countries come under harsh scrutiny for the advice they give, more co-operation and pooling of information among experts is needed.

Crisis management could also benefit from advisory processes in different countries following a set of similar principles and assuring a more effective and timely exchange of relevant information and data, the report says.