| |
The
problem:
"In
March 1996, ten years after the first identification
of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) and after
ten years of maintaining that it was safe to eat
beef, the Government acknowledged that BSE had
probably been transmitted to humans. There was
widespread concern that several expert advisory
committees, over a number of years, appeared to have
failed to alert the Government, or the public, to the
risks of eating beef. Worse, it was suspected that
scientific uncertainty had been covered up by
politicians and civil servants in order to prevent a
food scare. The scientific community was blamed too:
science, and the scientific advisory system, appeared
to have failed to protect the public. Something had
gone seriously wrong. At the same time, there was
mounting concern about standards in public life, on
the one hand, and on the way in which government
quangos operated, on the other. The Nolan Committee
had felt the need to restate the general principles
which should underpin public life, and had called on
all public bodies to establish Codes of Conduct.
Public confidence in the integrity of Government was
at a low ebb".
[House of Commons Select Committee on Science and
Technology's The Scientific Advisory System,
2001]
Government
action:
In
October 1994 the Committee on
Standards in Public Life (formerly the Nolan
Committee) was established by PM John Major
to tackle 'sleaze' -
"to examine current concerns about
standards of conduct of all holders of public
office, including arrangements relating to
financial and commercial activities, and make
recommendations as to any changes in present
arrangements which might be required to
ensure the highest standards of propriety in
public life". The Committee
monitors the application of the Nolan
Principles in Codes of Conduct for
individuals & in Codes of Practise for
Committees.
In June 1998 the
Government published a report setting out its
proposals to make quangos [Quasi-autonomous
Non-Governmental Organisations] more open,
accountable and effective: Quangos:
Opening the Doors.
The report concluded "The principle
of openness is paramount: this can only make
impropriety more difficult to hide. At the
same time, a more informed and more involved
public should mean that public confidence in
NDPBs [Non-Departmental Public Bodies, =
quangos] will be greatly enhanced".
In
1997 the current edition of the Code of Practise
on Access to Government Information was
published.
In
March 2000 the House of Lords Science and
Technology Select Committee published a
Report Science and
Society addressing what it saw as a
crisis in public confidence in science. The
report summary says "people place more
trust in science which is seen as
'independent'. There is still a culture of
governmental and institutional secrecy in the
United Kingdom, which invites
suspicion". They recommended "that
advisory and decision-making bodies in areas
involving science should adopt a presumption
of openness. This presumption should apply,
in particular, to the reasons on which
regulatory decisions are made, including all
scientific information and advice".
In
July 2000, alongside the Science and
Innovation White Paper, the OST [Office
of Science & Technology] published
revised guidelines for Government Departments
and scientific advisory committees, Guidelines 2000 -
Scientific Advice and Policy Making. The revised
Guidelines extend to social science research,
and place greater emphasis on stakeholder
involvement and on openness and transparency,
particularly in relation to uncertainty.
In
December 2001, the OST updated the Code of Practice for
Scientific Advisory Committees after extensive
consultation. The Code focuses on the need
for openness and well-defined areas of
responsibility.
In
October 2000, the report of the BSE Inquiry
conducted by Lord Phillips ("the
Phillips Report") was published.
This includes a wide range of lessons to be
learned on the use of scientific advisory
committees, on the co-ordination of research,
and on dealing with uncertainty and the
communication of risk. The Government's
response, published in February 2001, said
[para. 4.11] "the Government is
committed to strengthening the implementation
of Guidelines 2000 and ensuring that its
scientific advisory committees follow the
Code of Practice" and [para. 4.9] that
consultation respondents "felt that the
independence of committees was important and
that emphasis should be placed on having
clear terms of reference; operating openly;
and using agreed risk assessment
structures".
In
November 2000 The Freedom of Information
Act received Royal Assent. It provides a
statutory framework for openness in
Government, making disclosure of information
the norm save in exceptional circumstances.
From 1 January 2005, people will have the
right to make a request for any
information held by a public authority and
the authority will have to comply with the
Act in responding.
In
March 2001 the House of Commons Select
Committee on Science and Technology published
a report The Scientific
Advisory System. Their case study Genetically
Modified Foods said "the role of
the scientific advisory system, its
effectiveness and independence, are essential
if Government is to fulfil its
responsibilities". The main report
concluded "all is not well with the
scientific advisory system ... faults in the
way that the advisory committees are set up,
staffed and operate, mean that it is not
always as good as it needs to be. The
Government does not always seek advice when
it needs it, nor ask the right questions. It
is not always effective in assessing the
advice when it gets it, and does not always
apply that advice in policy-making. The
distinction between the role of scientific
advisory bodies and Government Departments in
policy-making is not always clear-cut. These
are systemic problems which must be
addressed. ... there is still some
institutional complacency, and a misplaced
belief that the problem lies with public
perception rather than with the structure and
use of the scientific advisory system itself.
Reform of the scientific advisory system is
required if public confidence is to be
restored".
Science
and drug policy:
In
July 2003 Colin Blakemore, Chief Executive of the
Medical Research Council, stated in a
presentation A Scientifically Based Scale of
Harm for all Social Drugs that "social
drugs ... are classified by the Misuse of Drugs
Act as Class A/B/C, an inflexible system of
classification that is based on a mixture of
scientific evidence, familiarity with the
particular drug, and the needs of the legal
system" and that "it is biased by the
novelty of drugs and by media attention and
public opinion". He concluded that "the
present classification of drugs makes little
sense. It is antiquated and reflects the
prejudice and misconceptions of an era in which
drugs were placed in arbitrary categories with
notable, often illogical, consequences. The
continuous review of evidence, and the inclusion
of legal drugs in the same review, will allow
more sensible and rational classification,
putting illegal drugs in context with those
already accepted".
The Beckley Foundation - Society
& Drugs: A Rational Approach
|