The Received Wisdom

Posted by Andrew Wadge on December 11th 2006 in Science in Government

 I couldn't make the launch last week of the pamphlet published by the Demos think-tank: The Received Wisdom - Opening up expert advice. 

Some of my Agency colleagues did attend and I've now got my own copy.

The pamphlet focuses on the role of experts and the need to embrace a greater range of expertise. I was pleased to see the importance of lay members on expert committees was recognised and parallels drawn with the key governance role of non-executive directors of companies.

Demos also raises a number of issues about the role of lay members on expert committees that I want to discuss with the Chairs of the independent scientific advisory committees and my colleagues on the secretariats.

The pamphlet raises a number of important issues about the relationships between experts on scientific advisory committees and those who use their advice. There's a lot of food for thought here and I will be discussing with colleagues how we can feed this into our developing science governance work.

add new comment

Experts

Posted by Val (not verified) on 16/01/2007 - 13:35

Maybe experts no longer rely on public deference but it seems they still make use of incomprehensible jargon on occasion

Max

Posted by Jack Stilgoe (not verified) on 15/01/2007 - 15:02

Thanks for your thoughtful reading. Some of the points you pick up on we certainly could have explained in more detail. We are all certainly aware of the EEA report. It has been very influential, and serves as a useful reminder of the spirit of precautionary thinking at a time when the precautionary principle is too often reduced to legalese.

The inconclusiveness of the section on lay members is intentional. It is not our place to say what lay members are for, as this is still being worked out. We were keen to acknowledge that, in some instances, lay members were being used constructively. In others, they are being used pretty instrumentally. The question of whether they should represent organisations or one-dimensional public interests is still an open one.

Demos on Received Wisdom - Opening up expert advice

Posted by Max Wallis (not verified) on 18/12/2006 - 18:36

The Demos study takes a shot at “evidence-based policy” but not at “sound science” (not directly). Its reference to standards of proof – balance of probabilities v. beyond reasonable doubt – is unfortunately only in passing. It is unaware of work by the EEA and WHO on this point and in implementing the precautionary principle into decision-making.

Its section on Lay membership of committees is inconclusive. Are such people just non-specialists or are they to represent the public? If the latter, then setting them as isolated representatives is ineffective – they need support and training, plus resourcing for reporting and a degree of accountability.

The report envisages a new social contract between experts and society whereby the expert hubris and demand for public trust gives way to a humbler, trusting-the-public ethos. Rather than forcing expert consensus, committees should be ready to give pluralist and conditional advice. Control of agendas etc. would be distributed rather than exercised centrally.

Though Demos says the FSA is further along this transformation that other government bodies, the example of pesticide spraying should give food for thought in COT etc. Likewise the BSE story (British beef is safe) resonates with FSA assurances over Scottish salmon.

Andrew,

Posted by Jack Stilgoe (not verified) on 14/12/2006 - 12:48

Andrew,

Thanks for your comments on the pamphlet. We were pleased to have Sir John Krebs at the launch, your erstwhile chair. He spoke both from experience and as someone who was at the heart of rethinking these issues five or so years ago.

We look forward to seeing how the FSA continues its leadership in this debate.

Doing things differently

Posted by Susan McGinty (not verified) on 13/12/2006 - 16:06

So looking at 'Doing things differently' Select Committee report and the Demos report do you think evidence-informed policy rather than evidence-based policy is the way forward in the FSA? Perhaps using principles of complexity science to anticipate emergent phenomena and deal with perturbations more effectively?
The Demos report talks about threshold levels of evidence (balance of probabilities/beyond a reasonable doubt) - what does FSA look for? Since we are now in the realms of evidence thresholds for health claims in Europe, this is very prescient report.