Summary
Our inquiry into science advice in chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) emergencies discovered a confusing landscape of organisations and acronyms which has been difficult to navigate. In particular a distinction between deliberate ‘CBRN’ incidents and accidental ‘Hazmat’ releases of the same materials may be creating confusion or limiting the mechanisms which local planning bodies can access in order to obtain scientific expertise. It is important that definitions do not stand in the way of organisations receiving science advice.
Science advice for CBRN incidents is provided through the “Emergency Coordination of Scientific Advice” (ECOSA) mechanism. ECOSA is a relatively new mechanism that has not yet had to react to a national emergency. We recommend that dry-runs and practice scenarios for CBRN include ‘live’ unscheduled drills which test the speed and effectiveness of the provision of science advice. The remit of ECOSA also needs to be clarified with respect to Hazmat incidents.
The Government is making use of scientific evidence to refine its CBRN Response Framework and it appears that in introducing changes the Government is making use of the evolving scientific evidence in a pragmatic way. Science also contributes to the detection and modelling of CBRN and Hazmat incidents, via the Met Office and the National Physical Laboratory.
However, coordinating effective advice in relation to the Fukushima Hazmat incident was possible only as a result of domestic expertise being available in the relevant areas of science. Effective science advice relies on the ongoing availability of such expertise, and the Government should review its lists of experts to identify where gaps may emerge in the future as individuals retire.
Communicating accurate science advice to the public in the event of a CBRN or Hazmat incident is an essential part of the response. We heard concerns that access to informed government scientists is not always possible, and it is understandable that meeting the media’s demand for expert spokespeople may not naturally be the first priority for the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE). We endorse the recommendation made by the Science Media Centre that future SAGEs should include a dedicated independent scientific press officer to ensure that the communication of science to the public is as good as it can be during an emergency.
For the advice received during a CBRN or Hazmat incident to be understood and interpreted by the public it needs to build on a basic level of understanding of science topics such as radiation. The Government should commission GO-Science to produce clear and simple guidance for the public for dealing with different types of CBRN or Hazmat emergency, not just in terms of the actions they need to take but also the science that underpins them.
27 March 2017