APPENDIX 6
Memorandum from the British Psychological
Society
I am writing in my capacity as the Chair of
the Research Board of the British Psychological Society.
The Society welcomes the above inquiry into
the use of scientific advice (including the social sciences) and
the way in which the guidelines governing the use of such advice
is being applied in practice across Government.
We believe that psychology has contributed a
great deal to the understanding of the public's perceptions of
risk and the perceptions of expert evidence. In particular, we
would like to draw the Select Committee's attention to a report
written by Professor Richard Eiser at the request of the OST for
Foresight on the Public Perception of Risk (2004). This
report was written on the basis of psychological theories of attitudes,
decision making, learning and social influence, and outlined that
perceptions of risk are based on both implicit and explicit assessments
of the costs and benefits of certain actions. That is, people
use both intuitive, often rather automatic or unconscious inferences,
and they use more rule-based formal ways to judge risk. However,
with both types of judgment, people are very prone to biases that
mean they do not appreciate the objective levels of risk. Such
judgements are made on the basis of both experience and information
that is provided by others. Importantly, the report outlined the
role of science in providing information on uncertainty and choice,
and the consequences of withholding "expert" information.
A copy of the report and its summary is attached for your reference.
We believe that an evidence-based approach to
policy making is entirely appropriate and necessary. We also recognise
and endorse the need to ensure consistency in practice across
government. Science has a fundamental role in informing the both
the development of policy, as well as the way such evidence is
used in policy making (ie the mechanisms through which it is obtained
and evaluated). However, Government must also be minded of the
publics' perception (trust/distrust) of both science and scientists,
and the importance of ensuring that information is provided in
a transparent and accessible form. In particular, we recommend
that Government should attend to the way in which risk information
is compiled and communicated. These two aspects are relevant regardless
of whether information relates to risk at the level of organisations,
at the level of individuals (eg in relation to choices about medical
treatment options), it is important to provide proper guidance
on the ways in which risk can be miscalculated or inferred on
the basis of erroneous assumptions. There is a substantial psychological
evidence base that can make a very important contribution to ensuring
that risk is (a) properly calculated and (b) properly communicated.
We urge that scientific statements regarding risk should that
evidence into account. Of course, the quality of evidence used
to calculate risks is also of paramount importance; as to develop
policy on the basis of little evidence could be not only misguided
(as the potentially unknown consequences could be far reaching)
but in addition, (and perhaps more importantly) damaging to both
Government and to the reputation and perception of science (and
scientists).
January 2006
|
