8 Conclusion
79. We sought in this case study to examine how scientific
advice is used by the Government to inform and advise on legislation
emanating from the EU. Of course, individual departments are responsible
for taking the lead on relevant Directives and for seeking appropriate
advice. To this extent, many of our conclusions about the way
in which advice was sought and handled are focussed on the HSE,
HPA and the medical research community. We have found flaws in
their processes for providing advice on EU legislation. Similar
failures in consultation at the Commission resulted in the need
for further research to inform policy being identified far too
late in the legislative process, and not acted upon with sufficient
speed. Without the benefit of this research, we have seen no evidence
to justify the inclusion of MRI in the scope of the Directive:
existing guidelines are sufficient and provide the flexibility
to cope with any unintended negative impacts on MR procedures.
80. There are some general lessons which we identified.
The importance of securing the necessary breadth of scientific
advice and for giving appropriate consideration to dissenting
voices is clear, although in this case the MR community was also
slow to appreciate the full potential impact of the Directive.
This inquiry has emphasised the need for horizon-scanning of EU
activities to be carried out, but also to be ingrained into the
policy making process. We have identified a need for the Research
Councils to improve their mechanisms for identifying when the
interests of the UK research community may be affected. Finally,
we have found that the precautionary principle is not yet sufficiently
well defined to be of real practical use to policy makers. We
will return to some of these issues in our final Report, having
assimilated the lessons of our other two case studies and further
evidence.
|
