Examination of Witnesses (Questions 40-59)
PROFESSOR SIR
DAVID KING
AND MS
SUE DUNCAN
15 FEBRUARY 2006
Q40 Mr Newmark: Yes.
Professor Sir David King: I think
the point with Defra is that it emerged from the MAFF situation,
so Defra has been a department very keen to put these things right,
so I think the Science Advisory Committee in Defra, the membership,
in my view, has been very good, drawn from outside, good people
who have been challenging and critical. I think the same is really
true of the other advisory committees that have been formed. I
should say that the Ministry of Defence has always been very good
at this, but the best practice from there has not always been
spread around.
Q41 Mr Newmark: Do you feel that
lay representation is important on scientific advisory committees?
Professor Sir David King: Perhaps
I can answer your question by, for example, looking at the GM
Science Review Committee that I formed to advise the Government
on the position on GM foods. We had scientists only on that group
of 22/23 people. The major NGOs were asked to nominate scientists,
so I included scientists nominated by the NGOs on the group, but
it seemed to me only right that it should be a group of scientists
who examine the scientific evidence and report on that. We did
hold all of our meetings, and I think it was about 100 hours of
meetings that I chaired on that, all of our meetings were held
in public, so anyone could attend, but I do think that this is
an issue where science advice needs scientists to hammer it out.
Q42 Mr Newmark: So, from a public
policy standpoint, you see no benefit from having lay representation
on them because it is science they are concerned with? Is that
right?
Professor Sir David King: I think
it would depend on the issue, so the Food Standards Agency, for
example, which I think has done a tremendously good job since
its inception, and again that really rose out of the BSE crisis,
the Food Standards Agency does have a broadly drawn group of people
on its board and even on its executive board, so I think there
are situations where public, as consumer, and public, as lay people,
do have a critically important role to play.
Q43 Mr Newmark: What method should
be used to determine the weighting given to different kinds of
evidence? I know you have alluded to there being certain cases
in which pure science is involved and some which are more sort
of public policy-oriented, so how does one balance scientific
input versus lay input in these sorts of things? Is that important?
Should we again be just focusing on really what the scientists
have to say?
Professor Sir David King: I think
it is very important. I think, for example, if you take the current
Energy Review as a very hot topic at the moment, there are views
of the scientists that are required as input in terms of the different
forms of energy that can contribute to the energy requirement
for the next 30, 40 or 50 years, but again the issue of public
acceptability is absolutely vital, so I think in those discussions
it is very important to engage with the public. So I have set
up a Science in Society group in the Office of Science and Technology
and within that we have developed something called ScienceWise,
and ScienceWise is precisely a process of getting scientists together
with lay people to discuss issues such as nanotechnology and whether
or not there are issues the lay people see that scientists do
not see.
Q44 Mr Newmark: Lay people, though,
could be business people or people who are not necessarily pure
scientists who can see the applications, for example on nuclear,
and everybody comes with their preconceived views, and that is
an issue I think we have to deal with. Science is seen as not
infallible sometimes and I think from our Committee standpoint
there is a perception that it is important that there may be a
need to have committees of experts that are not necessarily just
purely drawn from the science community.
Professor Sir David King: Let
me answer by giving you two examples where I think this has gone
very well. One is the therapeutic cloning discussion in the House
of Commons and the House of Lords where the discussion was led
by information from scientists but nevertheless the discussion
within those two Houses was an exceptionally good discussion.
Equally, I think the discussion last night on smoking. You know
what the science advice is but then there is a question of public
acceptability and changing the position on that. So I think when
it comes to policy advice we have to recognise the importance
of public acceptability, absolutely.
Q45 Mr Newmark: What evidence is
there of the impact of the re-launched Council for Science and
Technology? What impact has it had? Is there any at all?
Professor Sir David King: The
answer is yes. The Council for Science and Technology draws together
a group of people who, rather different to the former Council,
include experts who can deal with health and medical issues, experts
who can deal with issues of risk, and experts who can look at
the whole wealth creation side of the equation. It has produced
three very influential documents. Their meetings with the Prime
Minister have certainly been effective, I think. The new Council
is still in its early days but I do think it is already having
an impact.
Q46 Mr Newmark: Sue, do you have
much interaction with the Council for Science and Technology?
Ms Duncan: Not directly. It has
social scientists on it.
Q47 Chairman: Do you ever sit on
it?
Ms Duncan: No.
Chairman: Do you ever attend it?
Q48 Mr Newmark: Do you think you
should be interacting with it, involved with it at all, or do
you not see yourself having a role at all?
Ms Duncan: I think I trust Sir
David to bring me in when he thinks I have a role there.
Q49 Chairman: That is a very diplomatic
answer.
Professor Sir David King: The
Council for Science and Technology is an external group. They
are all drawn from outside government.
Ms Duncan: So I could not actually
sit on it even if I wanted to.
Q50 Mr Newmark: How important are
the research councils and their institutes in the provision of
science advice to government? Is there a case for strengthening
their input at all?
Professor Sir David King: The
research councils are arms' length bodies from government and
I think they are, rightly, jealous of that position, so that any
advice that we receive through the research councils would be
entirely on a voluntary basis. Now, having said that, I would
not hesitate to ring up one of the chief executives of the research
councils to ask whether that person him or herself would be able
to give me advice or can advise me on one of their own people
to advise me. I think that we should not under-estimate the critical
importance of the science advice we receive—social science,
hard sciences—across the whole patch, from the science base
as funded out into the universities and our research institutions.
That is what is strengthening the evidence-based policy advice
system.
Q51 Chairman: Could I just jump in
there to ask you, Sir David, did you then in terms of NERC's decision
to close some of its centres intervene to ask whether this was
going to have an effect on science and, indeed, your ability in
terms of being able to advise government, particularly on some
of the those huge environmental research issues?
Professor Sir David King: I would
always be rather careful to sit above the discussion. Any research
council has to guard its independence but at the same time my
views would be well-known to the research council.
Q52 Chairman: Did you give your view
on those closures?
Professor Sir David King: I have
discussed it with the chief executive but at the same time I respect
the view that what might have been good for the research councils
to fund in the past might not be good for the research councils
to fund in the future, so they have to work within a finite budget
and adapt their priorities.
Q53 Mr Newmark: Is there a role for
learned societies in the provision of advice or not?
Professor Sir David King: Yes,
and in particular we turn to the Royal Society, the Royal Academy
of Engineers, but also the Institute of Physics and the engineering
learned societies. We turn to them on a regular basis as well.
Q54 Mr Newmark: Moving further along
the food chain then, what is your view on the role of consultants
in all this?
Professor Sir David King: The
role of consultants within government as a whole? No, I do not
have a view except insofar as the scientific advice that I receive
could be described as consultancy but it is given pro bono.
Q55 Mr Newmark: In my understanding,
government does go out to hire consultants and almost outsource
some of the advice that it gets. Should this information they
get from consultants be used by government to analyse and collect
evidence for policy making?
Professor Sir David King: I can
only speak for myself, and I do use consultants, so for example
in the reviews of government departments we use consultants—
Q56 Mr Newmark: You do not view it
as having a detrimental effect on policy development? I am only
going from some of the information I have read. There is a perception
that people feel that consultants should not perhaps be used.
Professor Sir David King: I would
go against that view.
Chairman: I wonder if we could ask Sue
the same question because there is a very, very strong view, particularly
in the social policy area, that in fact consultants are hired
to give government the advice that it wants in order to affirm
its policies. Is that a fair criticism?
Mr Newmark: Most companies that I know,
being a venture capitalist, do the same thing. They hire consultants
because they have already formulated a policy—
Q57 Chairman: Government is pure,
Brooks, you must realise this!
Ms Duncan: To answer your question,
no, I do not think it is a fair criticism. It is perhaps worth
bearing in mind that on the social research side, most of our
research is commissioned, so it is done by either academics, commercial
survey organisations or research institutes, and some of it is
done by consultants. We, in line with the rest of government,
are committed to the tendering rules set down by the Office of
Government Commerce so that when we are commissioning a piece
of research we will invite a range of different research providers.
As far as the advice that comes from that research, and by no
means all research used by government is commissioned by them,
it makes enormous use of available research council research of
course, I think for the social sciences we actually have a good
record drawing on academic expertise. You will know that a number
of government departments have brought in academic experts. For
example, the Department for Education and Skills has introduced
several into the research advice on education for some years.
I think the line that is taken broadly is that where advice is
needed, we invite the best person for the job, and that might
be an academic, it might be a consultant.
Q58 Chairman: Could I ask both of
you whether you feel that, as a policy, research which is commissioned
should in fact be published?
Ms Duncan: Yes.
Q59 Chairman: Sir David?
Professor Sir David King: Absolutely,
except where there is a national security issue.
Chairman: Of course, yes, but that should
be a principle we should set because I think that is one of the
frustrations that the research is not published. Moving on, Evan,
to the use of evidence in policy making.
| 
