Select Committee on Science and Technology Minutes of Evidence



4.  ESTABLISHING CONFIDENCE IN SCIENCE AND ITS USE IN POLICY MAKING

  4.1.  The confidence of the public in the science underpinning Government policy is an important consideration in the formulation and presentation of policies. Public confidence depends on the belief that the full range of scientific evidence and analysis is considered in an honest and open way. This is an area which it is fair to say has not been addressed fully in the past and on which there is scope for further development. The Committee's views will be welcomed.

Access to information

  4.2.  The Government committed itself to a Freedom of Information Act in its Election manifesto and work has been continuing towards this goal since May last year. A White Paper, Your Right to Know, was published in December to be followed by a draft Bill later this year. A period of public consultation has followed (or will follow) each publication. This regime will apply to science along with all other aspects of Government and will reinforce the principle already set out in the guidelines of a presumption towards openness in publication of scientific advice used in policy making.

  4.3.  FOI Act will replace the existing Code of Practice on Access to Government Information and, like the Code, will apply to all Government-held information (although the Act will extend more widely across the public sector) including scientific information and advice. The key differences will be the change from an administrative code to Statute Law thus moving final decisions on the release of information from the Executive to an independent Information Commissioner or the Courts.

  4.4.  It is worth noting, in particular, that the FOI Act will almost certainly contain requirements to release information pro-actively, including, as the White Paper put it:

    "facts and analysis which the Government considers important in framing major policy proposals and decisions;

    explanatory material on dealings with the public;

    reasons for administrative decisions to those affected by them;

    operational information about how public services are run, how much they cost, targets set, expected standards and results, and complaints procedures."

 (Your Right to Know, paragraph 2.18)

  4.5.  Already departments are moving increasingly towards publishing key scientific data and advice which has been used in reaching policy decisions. The Committee on Toxicity (COT), for example, which offers advice to a range of departments on the toxic risks to humans of substances which are used, for instance, as food additives or in household goods, has a policy of issuing statements summarising their conclusions together with the key points/evidence that influenced their views on all topics they have considered. Vitamin B6 is a recent example.

Improving Confidence in Policy based on science

  4.6.  The public need to have confidence that all relevant scientific evidence has been given due consideration and that the conclusions have then been effectively integrated into the process of policy formulation. Many people are now better informed than in the past on scientific issues. The Internet, for example, makes it easier for people to research areas of concern and thus more readily question the approaches being taken by Government and others. Government, scientists and medical practitioners are no longer revered as they might have been in the past and the presentation of advice needs to acknowledge this.

  4.7.  In the area of risk assessment, for example, bland statements of zero risk or 100 per cent safety are much more likely to undermine the scientific advisory system than to promote confidence in it, particularly where the issue of concern is at the frontier of knowledge. Further, risk management measures are unlikely to be successful unless the risk assessment also addresses how those affected frame and perceive the risks, and the stakeholders are involved throughout the process. It is now accepted that a wide range of factors influence the perception of risk. For human-created hazards they include how well the process giving rise to the hazard is understood, how equitably the danger is distributed, how well individuals can control their exposure to the risk and whether the risk is assumed voluntarily.

  4.8.  Adherence to the OST guidelines and greater transparency in presenting the scientific evidence may well not be sufficient in themselves to secure public confidence in the scientific advisory system. Scientific advice is seldom perceived by the public as value free, especially when sought or presented by Government, and greater transparency may well raise more questions than it answers, at least initially. Greater transparency and openness will inevitably invite comparison between the approaches of different departments. In future it may also be necessary to distinguish more clearly between scientific advice (ie what is known and what is not known about an issue) and value judgements about what should be done to address an issue. Finally, greater attention may have to be paid to the manner in which scientific advice is elicited so that the advice:

    —  is robust when subject to national and international peer review;

    —  is as immune as possible to recognised sources of bias; and

    —  characterises uncertainty, typically by establishing where possible the consensus without muffling the nature and strength of alternative views.

  4.9.  As part of the process of addressing this, the Health and Safety Executive, with other departments, proposes to:

    —  review previous research (if any) linking how expert advice/judgement has been incorporated into decision making with the quality of the results obtained; and

    —  develop procedural guidance on how best to elicit knowledge or judgement from experts and ensure its robustness; characterise uncertainty; and incorporate expert advice/judgement in the wider decision making process.

  4.10.  The role of scientific expert advice in food safety policy is a particularly interesting area given that it is not normally possible to quantify food risks or even assess them directly. Consumers tend to be concerned mainly about "chemical" risks like food additives and pesticide residues whilst experts often point to the greater risks in "traditional" food. There is a particularly important interplay in food safety policy between the expert scientific risk assessment and the need to bring other factors, such as consumer views, to bear. There has also been a considerable amount of research done in the food area on consumer perceptions and their origins, and on the crucial part that trust plays in the ways that Government pronouncements are received.

  4.11.  Understanding the public (and, indeed, the many different "publics") and their attitudes towards science is a critical factor in enabling better public engagement with science and more effective science communication. In September 1997, the Minister for Science, Energy and Industry announced his intention to use the "big issues" of science as a way of opening up debates and techniques such as Consensus Conferences and Citizens' Juries to enable lay people to explore subjects in depth and present their views. Progress so far includes:

    —  a commitment to a public consultation exercise on the wider—including ethical—issues raised by recent advances in the biological sciences. A preparatory meeting with those active in both the biosciences and science communication was held in March 1998 to assist with the development of the consultation activity, which is scheduled to start over the summer of 1998; and

    —  sponsorship of a Consensus Conference to be run by an independent charity. This conference, on the subject of nuclear waste management, will aim to provide a picture of what are the key issues, as seen by the public, associated with the handling and disposal of radioactive waste. This information will then be provided to policy makers.


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 1998
Prepared 31 July 1998