3. THE
QUALITY OF
SCIENTIFIC ADVICE
3.1. As the Committee rightly acknowledges,
it is imperative that the scientific advice used in policy making
is of the highest quality. It is important that the advice draws
on the full range of opinions and that, if debate is required,
that this should happen before the advice is used rather than
after. Policy makers are increasingly being required to take decisions
in areas where scientific evidence is as yet inconclusive, but
where failure to act could have significant or far reaching consequences,
such as climate change. In such cases it is vital to ensure that
the most recent available evidence is used to inform decisions,
and continually reassessed in the light of new evidence. Chief
Scientists of Government departments play an important role here,
both ensuring that those consulted have sufficient breadth of
knowledge, and that their work is of world quality.
3.2. The OST guidelines (discussed above)
embody a number of principles which are designed to ensure that
this happens. Scientific advice should be sought from a range
of sources both within and outside Government. Those chosen to
give advice should not necessarily be of like mind, and in many
cases it will be essential to consult experts from other, not
necessarily scientific, disciplines. Indeed it may well provoke
a more thorough debate if there are differences of opinion. But
the experiences and expertise of those involved should not be
in doubt and any critical views should be clearly flagged up.
3.3. The Government believes the key to
achieving this is to have systems in place to ensure that those
who are involved in the provision of advice are the best people
available. This issue is addressed by a number of cross Government
initiatives as well as by departments' own procedures.
3.4. On public appointments in general,
the Government is committed to ensuring that those serving on
advisory non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are appointed
on merit and meet the high standards expected of those in public
life. The Government has announced that Ministerial appointments
to advisory NDPBs will in future be within the remit of the Commissioner
of Public Appointments, who produces guidance on, and audits,
the process of public appointments. This will apply to a number
of scientific advisory bodies.
3.5. In addition, the Government proposed
in its consultation paper Opening up Quangos (published
on 11 November 1997) that advisory NDPBs should adopt codes of
practice for Board members, which set out the high standards of
propriety expected, and make provision for registering and resolving
any conflicts of interest. This consultation paper also reaffirmed
the Government's commitment to keeping the number of quangos to
a minimum and set out proposals for making those which remained
more open, accountable and effective. 400 responses to the consultation
paper were received from individuals and organisations, and the
majority of them generally welcomed the proposals. The results
of the consultation exercise are due to be published in June.
3.6. In the area of scientific advice, it
has been established since the Haldane Report of 1918 that day-to-day
decisions on the merits of different scientific strategies and
projects carried out as a part of scientific research should be
separate from the policy advice function which Governments Departments
provide to Ministers. The importance of this principle has been
reinforced by the more recent changes to Public Sector Research
Establishment (PSRE) structure, such as the move to a well defined
customer-contractor relationship, both in research establishments
that have been privatised and those that remain in the public
sector.
3.7. The 1993 White Paper Realising Our
Potential introduced the presumtion that research should be
procured by competitive tender (see below). This allows Departments
the freedom to look at different scientific approaches, theories
and areas before choosing which to follow, an approach which may
often be preferable to one which only asks one preferred supplier
of research and can result in better value for money. The Scottish
Office, for example, have obtained benefits from competitive tendering:
it provides benchmarking information which has enabled them to
make comparisons between potential contractors; and it has allowed
access to particular expertise (perhaps outside Scotland) in support
of the Department's research requirements.
3.8. Competitive tendering does however
rely on Government departments being intelligent customers for
research and setting the right research priorities—in short
departments must be able to ask the right questions. One of the
concerns of the CSA and OST is that departments should invest
sufficiently in the underpinning research capability required
to ensure that future issues are raised and can be intelligently
assessed. In the absence of such research departments can find
themselves in a position of not knowing what they don't know!
3.9. Departments address this issue in a
variety of ways. For example:
— the former Department of the Environment
operated a system of research ROAME (Rationale, Objectives, Appraisal,
Monitoring and Evaluation) statements which are now being extended
in modified form across the new combined DETR. These offer a number
of benefits: they provide a management plan for projects; they
concentrate the mind on the real objectives of a piece of work;
they provide a framework for analysing and applying experience;
they act as a selling document for the programme and a contract
between the policy customer of the research and the programme
manager. Periodic independent evaluation of the ROAME statement
and research programme assures the quality of the process.
— MAFF is reviewing over 40 of its
research programmes this financial year. These reviews involve
policy customers, the Chief Scientist's Group, the industry, contractors
and independent expert input, nationally and sometimes internationally.
Their purpose is to look at the conduct, results value and direction
of R & D projects as they are progressing, in relation to
their ROAME statements, and to consider any scope for scientific
or funding changes;
— the Interdepartmental Liaison Group
on Risk Assessment (ILGRA—run by the Health and Safety Executive)
is an example where departments co-operate to identify and fund
research of cross-departmental interest;
— the NHS Health Technology Assessment
Programme priority-setting process includes: widespread postal
consultation among NHS staff and the health care research community;
specialised consultation with national guideline groups and methodologists;
focus groups with GPs and health care commissioners; and scanning
and reviews of the scientific literature;
— the Scottish Office Department of
Health seeks the views of three advisory committees to assist
with the development of priorities. It has also opened a major
dialogue with the research community when recently revising its
research strategy that would set research priorities for a further
period of about five years. This has proved very valuable in deriving
a shared sense of direction and importance amongst competing areas
and has also highlighted those topics on which progress might
most rapidly be made; and
— in Northern Ireland, the Environment
and Heritage Service engages in environmental R&D through
a collaboration with the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency
and others in an organisation known as SNIFFER (Scotland and Northern
Ireland Forum for Environmental Research). SNIFFER commissions
research to futher the objectives of the member organisations
to the value of some £0.5 million per year in accordance
with a published strategy. The research is contracted to external
contractors appointed through competitive tender on the basis
of best value for money.
3.10. Careful consideration should always
be given to involving overseas experts. If a problem has been
tackled either well or ineffectively by another country, lessons
can be learnt and pitfalls avoided. Other countries may also have
access to scientific data which is not obtainable in the UK and
which might form a useful input into the analysis of a particular
issue. The MoD for example sees collaborative research with international
partners as a key means of tapping into international expertise
in the defence field. Collaborative research agreements exist
with a total of 21 countries, from which the UK receives benefits
which would cost much more to generate unilaterally. International
collaboration gives the UK access to the best available foreign
technologies and also provides a world class peer review process
on the technologies put forward for collaboration.
