1 Introduction
1. On 9 November 2005 we launched a major inquiry
into the Government's handling of scientific advice, risk and
evidence in policy making. As part of this inquiry, we undertook
three case studies focusing, respectively, on the EU Physical
Agents (Electromagnetic Fields) Directive, the classification
of illegal drugs and the technologies underpinning ID cards. The
Reports of these case studies have now been published.[1]
2. Our decision to pursue this inquiry reflects the
key role that scientific advice and risk assessment and management
are increasingly playing in policy making. Many of the most high
profile policy issues are critically dependent on the input of
scientists. These include: securing the economic development of
the UK through the knowledge economy; protecting the population
of the country against an avian influenza pandemic and other infectious
diseases; mitigating and adapting to climate change; safeguarding
the UK's energy supply; detecting and averting potential terrorist
threats; and tackling obesity. In each case, effective policy
development requires both an effective scientific advisory system
and appropriate use of evidence and advice on science and risk
by Government. This Government has repeatedly stated its commitment
to pursuing an evidence based approach to policy making and placed
great emphasis on the role of science in informing policy. In
undertaking this inquiry, we sought to test the validity of the
Government's claims. Our terms of reference were broad and inevitably
we focussed on certain aspects rather than seeking to cover the
whole field in great detail. In determining where to focus, we
were guided by the evidence we received as well as by the work
in similar areas undertaken recently by other select committees,
to which we refer.[2] We
followed up questions raised by our predecessor Committee about
the role and location in Government of the Chief Scientific Adviser
and examined how Government is using the different components
of the present advisory system, including its in-house capacity.
In the light of the current emphasis on evidence based policy
making in Government we decided to explore what this means in
practice. We also pursued in our overall inquiry some of the issues
raised in our case studies on risk, transparency and public communication.
3. We held five evidence sessions in conjunction
with the over-arching inquiry, during which we heard from:
- The Government Chief Scientific
Adviser; Government Chief Social Researcher and the Head of the
Government Economic Service;
- The Food Standards Agency;
- Learned societies, professional bodies, campaigning
organisations and academics;
- Departmental Chief Scientific Advisers from the
Home Office, Department for International Development and Department
for Transport; and
- The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry
and the Department of Trade and Industry Permanent Secretary.
- The transcripts of these sessions are published
with this Report, together with the 26 submissions we received
in response to our call for evidence and requests for supplementary
information.
4. During the course of this inquiry, we visited
the United States in order to explore potential lessons from the
scientific advisory system there. To inform our case studies,
we also looked at the US drugs classification system and examined
the development of technologies for use in ID systems there.[3]
We would like to place on record our thanks to all those who helped
organise the visit and contributed to the inquiry.
1 Science and Technology Committee: Fourth Report of
Session 2005-06, Watching the Directives: Scientific Advice
on the EU Physical Agents (Electromagnetic Fields) Directive,
HC 1030; Fifth Report of Session 2005-06, Drug classification:
making a hash of it?, HC 1031; and Sixth Report of Session
2005-06, Identity Card Technologies: Scientific Advice, Risk
and Evidence, HC 1032. Back
2
See Annex A for terms of reference of the inquiry Back
3
See Annex B for outline of visit programme Back
|
