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.
