|
During this inquiry into the Government's handling of scientific advice, risk and evidence in policy making we have already produced three separate Reports concerning our case studies: on MRI safety, the illegal drugs classification system and ID card technologies. This Report draws upon the lessons of these case studies and the other evidence we have received to reach conclusions about the operation of the scientific advisory system as a whole.
We have recommended that the role of Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA) be split from that of Head of the Office of Science and Innovation to reflect the very different nature of the two jobs and to enable full attention to be given to the GCSA's cross-departmental functions. We also argue that the GCSA would be better placed in a department with cross-departmental responsibilities, such as the Cabinet Office, and that the post-holder be further strengthened by having a seat on the board of the Treasury.
We welcome the steps that the current GCSA, Sir David King, has taken to secure the establishment of departmental CSAs in most departments. We have found that more needs to be done to ensure that all departmental CSAs are able to maximise their contribution to strategic decision making and policy development within their departments, and they are able to work collaboratively with the GCSA to provide an active network of scientific support for Government. We have also made recommendations to enhance scientific support in the civil service: the establishment of a Government Scientific Service, similar to existing government professional services, would serve to improve the position of scientists as a professional group within Whitehall and to help departments make more effective use of existing resources.
We have found scope for greater involvement of the learned societies and professional bodies in the UK scientific advisory system, not least in order to reduce dependence upon external consultants.
In considering evidence based policy, we conclude that the Government should not overplay this mantra, but should acknowledge more openly the many drivers of policy making, as well as any gaps in the relevant research base. We make the case for greater public investment in research to underpin policy making and recommend the establishment of a cross-departmental fund to commission independent policy-related research. In order to combat the short-term nature of the political cycle, there is a need for horizon scanning to be embedded into the policy making process and for a general recognition that changing policy in the light of evidence should be regarded as a strength rather than a weakness.
Transparency in policy making has been improved but we believe that in terms of a scientific input, a more high profile role for departmental CSAs can produce further improvements. Better monitoring of public consultations would also be merited.
We have found that there has been some valuable work on risk carried out by Government in recent years but have made a number of recommendations designed to ensure that the recent high level of attention devoted to this subject is maintained. We urge the Government to further its efforts to promote the responsible coverage of risk in the media, specifically by greater involvement of departmental CSAs and the development of a greater consistency and clarity in public communication.
| 
