Wise about science

Posted by Andrew Wadge on June 16th 2008 in General interest

A key part of the scientific process is challenging both the evidence and its analysis. This principle is embedded in the way the FSA does its work. This means that whether or not you’re a scientist you can engage with us, and challenge us at each stage of the process from framing the question through to generating the answer.  You can look at what we’ve done, the way we’ve done it and drill down to the evidence so you can make up your own mind.  

Just because we seek to involve you in the way that we develop our thinking and give you the opportunity to make up your own mind, doesn’t mean that we always get it right or that there’s not room for improvement.  This is why I am pleased to welcome the recent launch of the Sciencewise Expert Resources Centre.  Lord Robert Winston, the centre’s figurehead and leading ambassador, sees the new Sciencewise-ERC ‘as a valuable resource for developing two-way conversation with the public and, most importantly will build greater trust between Government, scientists and society as a whole’.

The new centre will provide a comprehensive range of services to assist in engaging effectively with the public and creating dialogues on new and emerging science and technologies.  We recently appointed our own Advisory Committee on Consumer Engagement, who will be working with us to review and assesses our consumer engagement work and to make recommendations on how our engagement processes might be strengthened. I’m sure this new resource will help us identify how this can happen. Why not check out the Sciencewise website?

I am looking forward to working with the Sciencewise-ERC to improve our science dialogues.

add new comment

Our science base

Posted by Andrew Wadge on 30/06/2008 - 14:41

Thank you for your comments.

The Agency prides itself on being a science-based organisation and we take powers to make sure that all the science we use stands up to challenge and scrutiny. We have several mechanisms in place to ensure this.

Firstly, the Agency has defined the governance of science as the method by which the Board assures itself that scientific evidence is being sought, obtained, interpreted used and communicated appropriately and effectively by the Agency. The Science Checklist is one of the tools that has been developed to support the governance of science.

Secondly, our independent scientific advisory committees have recently drawn up Good Practice Guidelines to show how they work.

Thirdly, we regard peer review to be an important part of dissemination of scientific data. The mechanisms we use for peer review at present are: publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals, scrutiny by our committees or other independent experts and publishing draft advice or assessments for consideration by stakeholders, including the wider scientific community.

Fourthly, the Joint Code of Practice for Research helps the Agency to ensure that research commissioned by the Agency is of a reliable quality and that the results of the research it commissions will stand up to rigorous scrutiny. The Agency is committed to the quality of the research and the process used to gather the data. The quality of research process in the code of practice underlies the research, giving confidence that the processes and procedures used to gather and interpret the results of the research are appropriate, rigorous, repeatable and auditable.

Finally, the Universal Ethical Code for Scientists, developed by the Government Chief Scientific Adviser, is a public statement of the values and responsibilities of scientists.

Trust

Posted by Anonymous (not verified) on 20/06/2008 - 00:25

I recently read about the idea that eating
breakfast can help with weight loss,
compared with skipping breakfast.

I would like to be able to turn to the FSA for an
opinion on this.

Do you have published metrics monitoring your
performance? Do you have established procedures
for the doublechecking of results?

If a paper is generated by a single member of the
FSA, then there is a potential for error.

If you come up with a statement endorsing an idea
(like eating breakfast), do you publish a report
explaining what studies you drew upon and how
you avoided unproven generalisations (like
assuming a certain result applies to all people
when the evidence does not prove this)?

Do you insist that results must be of sufficient
quality to have been published in Nature?

Do you require that results have been replicated
in independent institutions?

At one time, the general view was that ulcers
were best treated by stress reduction. Now, I believe,
the view is different. Any approach that
relies on scientific consensus may, of course,
fail if consensus is wrong.

Have you considered the effects of incorrect consensus
on the output of the FSA and have you come up with
a solution?

I am not an expert but I find it frustrating when I read
that a causative result has been proven when in fact
only correlation has been proven.

Proving causation may be more expensive than proving
correlation. Does the FSA have sufficient funds to
perform experiments proving correlation? If not,
does the FSA take the approach of being cautious
and only publishing statements about correlation?