Examination of Witnesses (Questions 100-106)
PROFESSOR SIR
DAVID KING
AND MS
SUE DUNCAN
15 FEBRUARY 2006
Q100 Adam Afriyie: So you would see
part of the public engagement to do with persuading the public?
Professor Sir David King: Part
of the public engagement is to taken an issue ahead of time—and
nanotechnology is an exemplar of that—and engage with the
public, which means listening to their worries and concerns. The
ScienceWise process is not simply saying, "This is what the
scientists say," it is saying, "This is what the scientists
say and what is your response to that?" And we take that
on board in order to formulate a policy of regulatory systems
in which we can benefit economically from developments in nanotechnology
and the public can develop an assured position on the product.
Q101 Adam Afriyie: But my observation
of consultations is that they tend to raise the expectations of
the people involved. A very brief example in Windsor constituency
of knocking on doors, there is a lovely old lady who lives in
central Windsor and she said, "Could you come and help me?
My eyesight is failing"—she was in her mid-80s—"I
have got another consultation document on the development of some
flats a bit further down the road." I think this was her
fifth document and she had spent hours filling these things in,
and I knew, as well as most of us know as MPs, that the result
of that is generally zero and what is going ahead is going to
go ahead in any case. So do you think that you are managing the
expectations correctly of the people who are involved in public
consultations and you are not setting them up for a fall?
Professor Sir David King: I think
we are in a very different place when we come to talk about the
issues I am discussing compared with the one you have discussed
because here we are saying it may well be that the Government,
as in the case of GM, will say, yes, these products have been
through our detailed analysis, they are safe, but the public still
says we do not accept it. In the case of nanotechnology, we are
simply saying let us get ahead of the curve so where the Government
is and where the public is is more likely to be in the same place.
Q102 Adam Afriyie: My final question
is in the interests of transparency—and you seem to be a
very open Chief Scientific Adviser and you were praised very highly
by Lord May, who is a live wire but I think he has got a good
instinct. Should it not be compulsory for departments to publish
their expert advice?
Professor Sir David King: That
is an issue that I would not really want to comment on. I think
we all know the problem that obviously it is important for me
to put my advice into the public domain because of the need to
get public confidence that what I am doing is not being politically
driven, but there is another discussion and argument to be had
about the freedom of discussion within government and how much
that might be impaired if everything was placed in the public
domain, so I think there is another decision.
Dr Harris: After the decision is made,
what about making it compulsory to publish two things—the
scientific advice upon which it is based, not necessarily the
advice but the evidence upon which the advice was summarising
and also a statement of the strength of that evidence, like they
do in the medical field now because everyone keeps saying there
is evidence and it is a very poor evidence base. You have got
to be able to distinguish that from something where there is good
evidence. On those two points, would you agree that there is a
case for publishing the—
Adam Afriyie: And also in the social
sciences.
Chairman: I think you had already agreed
that. The advice is more tricky but it would be useful. Could
we ask you to reflect on whether, in fact, once a decision is
made by Government that the advice which was given, which might
be in conflict with the evidence, is published, and perhaps you
could write to us on that?
Dr Harris: My question was also about
the extent of the strength of the evidence.
Q103 Chairman: That would come in
the advice.
Professor Sir David King: That
would certainly come in the advice. We are back to saying we cannot
reduce risk to zero, we have to manage risk, so, yes, that implies
that we have to state the strength of our understanding.
Chairman: I am trying in about three
minutes to wrap up this session, so, Brooks, can I just move you
on.
Q104 Mr Newmark: How effective is
horizon scanning in areas relating to science at the moment? How
do you respond to criticism that the Government has been slow
to identify a need for scientific input in legislation, and an
example of this might be the Human Tissue Act?
Professor Sir David King: I have
already stated that I run the Government's Foresight programme
and within the Foresight team I have now set up a centre of excellence
for horizon scanning and within that centre we are assisting other
government departments, through training, to improve the quality
of horizon scanning across government departments.
Q105 Mr Newmark: What does horizon
scanning mean to you, in layman's language?
Professor Sir David King: Quite
simply—and if I may come back to the foot-and-mouth epidemic
because I think it is easiest to explain it in particular terms—we
had a foot-and-mouth disease epidemic in 1967 in this country
and the lessons learned were placed in a document for the Ministry
to use if it should ever happen again. They dusted them over and
applied them immediately in 2001. However, between 1967 and 2001
some major changes in farming practice had occurred. It particular,
farmers were now sending their animals from one farm to another
through the lifetime of an animal and often to markets in between.
In other words, before slaughter and going to the table, an animal
might go through three or four different farms, which means that
the animal movements around the country had changed dramatically,
so whereas in 1967 the outbreak was confined largely to one region
of the country, in 2001 it had been nucleated throughout the country
through this animal movement. That was something that I believe
horizon scanning can pick up if it is done properly. In other
words, you horizon scan for changes in practice which might affect
the way you would manage a situation like that.
Mr Newmark: I will not come back to you.
Q106 Dr Iddon: For Sue Duncan please;
you have heard that the OST have set up a centre of excellence
in horizon scanning. Why have you not set up a similar body to
cover the sphere of influence that you are interested in?
Ms Duncan: Because the horizon
scanning centre within the Office of Science and Technology also
addresses the needs of social sciences. It goes across the board
and I think that is actually its strength, that we look at science
and social science together. There are good examples already of
us working together with the horizon scanning centre in ensuring
that we are anticipating future problems and issues.
Dr Iddon: I cannot beat that answer.
Thank you.
Chairman: Can I say thank you both very
much indeed, Sue and Sir David, for this session. We do have quite
a series of questions which we have not asked you, particularly
about evaluation, and I would be very grateful if we could write
to you with those to try to get a response on those, which would
be most useful. Thank you very much indeed for a very, very interesting
session and thank you to my Committee. The Committee is adjourned.
| 
