INTRODUCTION
1. This is my
first overview of the application of the
Government’s guidelines for the application
of scientific advice in policy making. The
guidelines were first issued in 1997 and reported
on by my predecessor in 1998 and 1999.On the
basis of experience they were revised and
strengthened in July 2000 and published alongside
the Government’s White Paper on Science and
Innovation.
2. The key
messages of Guidelines 2000 are that departments
should:
· think ahead
and identify early the issues on which they need
scientific advice;
· obtain a wide
range of advice from the best sources,
particularly when there is scientific
uncertainty; and
· publish the
scientific advice and all relevant papers.
8. Both
Guidelines 2000 and the shortly to be published
Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory
Committees were highlighted in the Government
response as key elements in addressing many of
the "Lessons Learned" in the Phillips
Report, particularly those that called for
greater openness, transparency and public
involvement in the process by which Government
obtains and uses scientific advice.
9. The
Government has readily accepted the great
majority of the recommendations made in these
three reports and, while developing or already
having in place mechanisms for implementing many
of them, has said that it fully recognises that
there is still more that needs to be done.
DEPARTMENTAL
PROGRESS IN IMPLEMENTING THE GUIDELINES
11. I asked
departments to report on the extent to which they
have implemented Guidelines 2000, including
details of any new structures or initiatives they
are planning, developing or have in place. I was
also interested to hear of any areas where
difficulties in implementing the Guidelines had
been encountered and what lessons had been
learned and what further actions were planned.
12. All
departments give some examples of how the
Guidelines have been implemented, and some have
been able to point to examples where they believe
they could have done better. Events over the last
year have only served to reinforce the importance
of the ideas that lie behind the Guidelines being
at the core of modern policymaking. I attach
particular importance to public confidence that
the Guidelines are fully implemented and that
difficulties in their application are addressed
and overcome. I will be considering with
Departmental Chief Scientists how to establish
better practices and processes to ensure that
Guidelines principles become firmly embedded into
the policy making process. It is my view and that
of Departmental Chief Scientists that some
element of independent monitoring or peer review
should constitute part of next year’s
report. I will be giving further consideration to
how this might best be achieved and discussing
possible approaches with departments.
13. The full
reports on implementation from individual
departments are included in the annex to this
report.
14. All
departments have now appointed an official to
oversee implementation of both Guidelines 2000
and the forthcoming Code of Practice for
Scientific Advisory Committees. This person will
also handle any complaints from the public
relating to implementation issues. A second annex
contains website and contact details for each
department.
General issues
15. Guidelines
2000 have formed an important plank in the
Modernising Government programme and the
Government is committed to seeing Guidelines 2000
implemented across departments. The principles
contained in the Guidelines and the need for
their effective implementation has been
recognised by all departments and many have made
great strides forward since the last
implementation report.
16. Of
particular note has been the setting up of the
Food Standards Agency, which from its inception
has been committed to developing and operating
best practice procedures that not only fully
implement Guidelines 2000 but in a number of
areas go even further.
17. Some
departments have also put in place internal
procedures for regular assessment of their
compliance with the Guidelines and a number
report the development of additional initiatives
to promote and strengthen further the
implementation of Guidelines 2000.
18. For example:
To ensure that
it has access to the best possible scientific
advice, the Food Standards Agency (FSA) is
carrying out a comprehensive review of its expert
committees that advise it on food safety issues.
A review panel that includes independent
assessors and stakeholders will carry out an
assessment of the ways that scientific advice is
commissioned, how the committees work and how
their advice is incorporated into the
agency’s decision-making processes.
Some Lessons
Learned
19. A number of
Departments have identified areas where lessons
have been learned and where they are seeking to
improve Guidelines implementation.
Particular issues that have been highlighted
include:
- Difficulties encountered in defining the key
questions that need to be asked often as a result
of lack of appropriate departmental in-house
expertise. In particular this has been pointed
out by some departments that have identified the
need for greater recognition of the social
dimensions of scientific questions.
- the need for policy officials used to a more
traditional approach, to be prepared to take into
account scientific advice that cuts across
traditional views and policies. The Forestry
Commission has used the Guidelines to expose such
attitudes and promote greater willingness to
listen to unorthodoxy and criticism.
- There is recognition that without effective
co-ordination of its scientific resources it may
not always be easy for a department to identify
the best source of expertise to address an issue.
A number of departments are seeking to address
this by setting up internal structures to
co-ordinate and maximise the benefits of their
scientific research and advice. Two examples are
the Home Office’s proposals for a Knowledge
Management database and the Department for
International Development’s Knowledge Policy
Unit.
- Inability to fully implement the Guidelines
because of other priorities for scarce resources.
Some Departments have found this to be a
particular issue in relation to resource
intensive initiatives such as open meetings,
public consultation and publication of some
documents. HSE for example has sought to address
the publication issue by improving internal
systems to ensure publication and requiring a
publication plan from its research customers.
Early
Identification of Issues
20. Horizon
scanning and early identification of issues are
acknowledged by departments to be an important
element in obtaining scientific advice and
planning research strategies. The new Code of
Practice will require scientific advisory
committees themselves to have procedures for
horizon scanning. However, it is evident that
while a number of departments report on
individual horizon scanning initiatives, some
departments are not yet confident that they have
in place their own effective mechanisms for
ensuring that appropriate horizon scanning takes
place within the department.
Obtaining Advice
21. Departmental
reports recognise the importance of obtaining
appropriate scientific advice from the best
possible sources. As I have described earlier,
there is an awareness of where shortcomings in
the current system are occurring and steps are
being taken to address these. All departments
that incorporate science into policy making have
access to sources of external advice and
research. There has been a considerable
broadening of the range of expertise employed in
many of the committees from which departments
seek scientific advice. For example, almost all
scientific advisory committees now include at
least one lay member and some two or more and
also frequently include members from
non-scientific but relevant disciplines such as
ethics or social science. The Code of Practice
for scientific advisory committees will lay out
the need for committees to ensure, in discussion
with their sponsor department(s), that they have
the right expertise to fulfil the remit they have
been given.
22. There
appears to be relatively little use made of
foreign scientific expertise in obtaining
scientific advice. Although some examples of this
have been reported by departments, (DH, FSA,
Forestry Commission, HSE), the Government has
indicated that it will consider how more might be
done to attract such people where this is
appropriate.
23. Departments
are reporting greater use of public and/or
stakeholder consultation both for development of
policy based on scientific advice or where
appropriate in development of the advice itself.
This latter area is particularly relevant where
developments in the science itself may have
actual or potential significant social or ethical
implications.
Handling and
Publication of Advice
25. There have
been a number of cross-departmental initiatives
put in place to improve publication of research
results and scientific advice in a climate of
greater openness and transparency.
26. For example,
as a first step towards greater use of Internet
technology, work is progressing on a central
science portal linking science and technology
domains on departmental websites, which will also
be accessible to people outside Government. In
addition to providing public access to
information about departmental research, the
initiative will facilitate better information
exchange and research co-ordination amongst
departments.
27. All
departments have a website on which they publish
information. In accordance with the Guidelines
this would normally include the scientific advice
and analysis that underlies policy decisions
together with research programmes and findings.
Departments are also increasingly using the
Internet as an additional mechanism for public
consultation.
28. Many
departmental scientific advisory committees now
also have their own website (most being hosted on
the website of their sponsoring department) and
all have or are developing a publication policy.
Starting from a presumption of openness the new
Code of Practice for these committees will set
out minimum standards for what committees should
publish.
Conclusions
29. Clearly much
has been done to take forward implementation of
the Guidelines since the last report. The
principles exemplified by Guidelines 2000 are
increasingly being built into departmental ways
of working with many departments now having in
place a broad range of internal structures and
initiatives to improve and co-ordinate
implementation.
30. However,
there have been a number of issues raised, for
example by the Phillips Report on BSE, which have
highlighted the need for further clarification of
some aspects of the way in which departments
obtain and handle scientific advice. Many of
these are too detailed to sit comfortably in a
high level document like Guidelines 2000. To
address these issues and to encourage greater
crossdepartmental consistency in handling science
policy issues I shall be setting up a system of
"Chief Scientific Adviser’s
letters" which can be updated as necessary.
These letters, which will be addressed to
departmental Permanent Secretaries, will set out
good practice on arrangements for handling
scientific advice and for managing research in
their departments. Their publication will provide
the wider public with the means to judge how well
departments are measuring up to the latest
benchmarks and also inform the work of other
review machinery.
31. I do share
the concerns expressed by some departments about
the adequacy of inhouse expertise and its impact
on the ability to ask the right questions and
identify the appropriate external experts. As
part of its crosscutting review the Government
will be looking at departmental in-house
scientific expertise and I shall be looking
carefully at the results of this exercise to see
what more needs to be done.
32. As I have
already indicated, a Code of Practice for
Scientific Advisory Committees is due to be
published shortly. While this is considerably
more detailed than the Guidelines and focuses on
the advisory bodies themselves rather than
Government departments it covers much of the same
ground and many of its principles are applicable
to both. Therefore in future I plan to publish a
joint implementation report covering both
implementation of Guidelines 2000 by departments
and implementation of the Code by their
scientific advisory committees. That document
will also contain a list of those committees that
can be expected to follow the Code.
ANNEX A -
DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS
The Home Office:
Guidelines 2000 Implementation Report
The value of the
Guidelines principles is widely recognised in the
Home Office and their application has actively
contributed to ways in which scientific advice is
used to support policy. This has been helped by
the Modernising Government initiative to
construct a framework of seven high level policy
aims. Each of these has supporting Business Plans
into which the contributions of science units to
policy support have been fully integrated. Some
of the detail of this support is set out on
S&T Roadmaps which form part of the HO
Science and Innovation Strategy.
The Home Office
places great importance on horizon scanning for
the early identification of issues which will
require scientific advice and to exploit the
potential of emerging technologies. This is
exemplified by the work of the Forensic Science
Service in tracking the rapidly expanding body of
DNA science and building a programme to develop
ultrasensitive methods of securing DNA evidence
from minute crime scene traces. Then to automate
DNA analysis so that this technology can be
applied to volume crime and therefore impact on
the number one Home Office policy goal of
reducing crime. This is being supported by a
National DNA database (which is a major new
investment) and there is new work on the use of
Bayes Nets for the statistical interpretation of
evidence and the development of expert systems.
All of this work is widely peer reviewed through
open publication and presentations at conferences
and through FSS’s strong bilateral links
with forensic services, particularly in the USA
and Europe.
The Home Office
funds many other crime reduction initiatives
including the generation of a strategic look
ahead to where the large scale investment by
business in electronic data tag technology is
going on a world-wide basis and to forecast
potential crime reduction applications for the
police service. This involved setting up a large
industrial collaborative framework involving
companies involved in the creation of development
and implementation of innovative applications of
these technologies as well as the police service
and other stakeholders, including HO policy
representatives. Tagging systems are primarily of
interest to manufacturers and retailers to
increase the efficiency of distribution and stock
control, while the Home Office interest centres
on the potential for crime deterrence and big
improvements in the police service’s ability
to locate and identify stolen property and to
secure evidence for prosecutions. These mutual
interests led to a major project being funded
which is now engaged on setting up a range of
high profile electronic tag pilot demonstrators,
each in a different product sector and engaging
the active participation and joint funding of
household name manufacturers and suppliers. These
will test the effectiveness of this technology in
both delivering business benefits and reducing
property crime and are intended to act as a
catalyst to accelerate the widespread adoption of
these tags in large scale manufacturing. The
project benefits from scientific and technical
expertise drawn from leading industries, from
other government departments and also from a
European Standards Committee plus a high degree
of transparency and a high profile media
campaign.
A third example
of the use by the Home Office of the Guidelines
is the introduction of an incapacitant into the
police service for normal patrol duties. The
Department realised very early on that such a
radical new step for the police raised many
sensitivities, particularly those on the possible
effects to human health. From the outset there
was sustained media interest and the active
involvement of many experts. The Home Office
assembled a multidisciplinary team which could
provide advice on some aspects of the project but
fully recognised the need to bring in the highest
quality advice from outside experts. A widespread
consultation exercise was launched to identify
the optimum solution to meet operational
requirements. This involved sifting through
relevant data, holding discussions with leading
experts and organisations – both nationally
and internationally - and weighing professional
findings and experiences. Department of Health
and the Ministry of Defence expert advice was
sought and the Department of Health Committee on
Toxicity was engaged to provide the best advice
on candidate incapacitants. The incapacitant
selected was CS dissolved in MIBK and the COT
review concluded that the available data did not
raise concerns about the health effects of CS
spray. There were some concerns about exposure to
asthmatics and people with certain heart
conditions; these were addressed by adherence to
ACPO operational guidelines and recommended
aftercare procedures, together with follow-up
studies to look for any delayed effects. The COT
report was published on the Internet and indeed
there was a high degree of public access to
project papers throughout. CS spray has now been
successfully introduced into the police service
where its widespread deployment has substantially
reduced injuries to the police and the public in
operations involving in arrest and restraint and
concerns over safety issues have been allayed.
The Home Office
has largely decentralised its science base and a
substantial part of it is now a net trading fund
agency (the Forensic Science Service) and an NDPB
(the Police Information Technology Organisation).
Some other science units that have been retained
in the core Home Office are located in
Directorates where they provide close support to
policy.
Also there is no
Chief Scientist function so it was decided to set
up the function of Hard Science Co-ordinator in
order to:
- Improve access to scientific advice for the
whole Department.
- Identify long-term cross-cutting scientific
issues.
- Take a corporate lead on providing scientific
advice to support policy.
- Advise on the content and balance of S&T
programmes to meet the Home Office high level
policy objectives.
- Develop mechanisms to improve co-ordination and
promote synergies between science units.
This new
function – which applies many of the
Guideline’s principles – has improved
the provision of scientific advice and the
co-ordination of S&T programme. This has been
supported by the development of a database of all
science projects sponsored by the Home Office
– both in S&T and those in the social
and management science areas. This has been
placed on the Home Office’s intranet.
Because Home
Office scientific staff are spread across a
number of locations it is not always easy to
identify the best source of expertise to address
an issue. So consideration is being given to
setting up a Knowledge Management database and it
is planned to pilot this in a science unit in
2002 to gauge its value before widening its use.
If successful, this would have a real impact on
maximising the benefits of scientific advice to
the whole of the Home Office very much in line
with Guideline principles.
Contact point:
The contact
point for implementation of Guidelines 2000 is:
Alan Pratt,
Deputy Director, PSDB, Sandridge, St Albans,
Herts AL4 9HQ
Tel: 01727
816277. alan.pratt@homeoffice.gsi.gov.uk