CONCLUSION
81. It is clear from the Phillips Report, and from
our own case studies, that all is not well with the scientific
advisory system. Many improvements have been made, but much remains
to be done. Much of the scientific advice delivered to Government
is excellent - and we pay tribute to those who provide it - but
faults, in the way that the advisory committees are set up, staffed
and operate, mean that it is not always as good as it needs to
be. The Government does not always seek advice when it needs it,
nor ask the right questions. It is not always effective in assessing
the advice when it gets it, and does not always apply that advice
in policy-making. The distinction between the role of scientific
advisory bodies and Government Departments in policy-making is
not always clear-cut. These are systemic problems which must be
addressed. We welcome the Government's constructive response to
the BSE inquiry and acknowledge the very real progress which has
been made, particularly in openness and transparency. But there
is still some institutional complacency, and a misplaced belief
that the problem lies with public perception rather than with
the structure and use of the scientific advisory system itself.
Reform of the scientific advisory system is required if public
confidence is to be restored.
|
