This is the fourth case study into the Scientific Advisory System. It is concerned with the way government receives advice and how it deals with scientific uncertainty. it found that climate change is an area where scientific advice was well integrated into policy making. Through close links between the DETR and the Hadley Centre and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the Government is well informed of the latest and most authoritative scientific opinion from around the world. The Committee believe that the IPCC model could be usefully adopted for other policy areas of global significance such as genetically modified organisms or ocean pollution.
This book documents highlights of NASA's interactions with outside scientific advisors over the agency's full lifetime and draws lessons from that history for research managers, decision makers, and scientists.The book is divided into three parts--the first two being focused on history and the third on synthesis and analysis. Part 1 briefly examines early forerunner activities at NACA and in the decade leading up to NASA's formation, and it then considers NASA's use of outside advice during its first three decades. Part 2 picks up the story in 1988 and follows it up to 2016. Part 3 examines a sampling of case studies, discusses recurring characteristics of notably successful advisory activities, and provides a glimpse at what past experience might imply for the future of scientific advice at NASA. The last two chapters provide big-picture summaries of themes that have emerged from earlier discussions.
This report looks at the way the Government uses scientific advice to inform its decision making, how it establishes the quality of its advice and whether the advisory structure works well. It examined four case studies: genetically modified foods, mobile phones and health, diabetes and driving licences and climate change. It concluded that not all is well with the system. 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 the advice in policy making. Reform is needed if public confidence is to be restored.
Policymakers prepare society for the future and this book provides a practical toolkit for preparing pro-active, future-proof scientific policy advice for them. It explains how to make scientific advisory strategies holistic. It also explains how and where biases, which interfere with the proper functioning of the entire science-policy ecosystem, arise and investigates how emotions and other biases affect the understanding and assessment of scientific evidence. The book advocates explorative foresight, systems thinking, interdisciplinarity, bias awareness and the anticipation of undesirable impacts in policy advising, and it offers practical guidance for them. Written in an accessible style, the book offers provocative reflections on how scientific policy advice should be sensitive to more than scientific evidence. It is both an appealing introductory text for everyone interested in science-based policy and a valuable guide for the experienced scientific adviser and policy scholar. "This book is a valuable read for all stakeholders in the scientific advisory ecosystem. Lieve Van Woensel offers concrete methods to bridge the gap between scientific advice and policy making, to assess the possible societal impacts of complex scientific and technological developments, and to support decision-makers’ more strategic understanding of the issues they have to make decisions about. I was privileged to see them proove their value as I worked with Lieve on the pilot project of the Scientific Foresight unit for The European Parliament’s STOA panel.” - Kristel Van der Elst, CEO, The Global Foresight Group; Executive Head, Policy Horizons Canada “A must-read for not only scientific policy advisers, but also those interested in the ethics of scientific advisory processes. Lieve Van Woensel walks readers through a well-structured practical toolkit that bases policy advice on more than scientific evidence by taking into account policies’ potential effects on society and the environment.” - Dr Paul Rübig, Former Member of the European Parliament and former Chair of the Panel for the Future of Science and Technology
America's governing system is unique in the extent to which scientists and other outside experts participate in the policy process. This wide-ranging study traces the rise of scientists in the policy process and shows how outside experts interrelate with politicians and administrators to produce a unique and dynamic policy process. It also shows how the very openness of American government creates the potential for unusual conflicts of interest. Bruce L. R. Smith focuses on the experiences of agency and presidential-level advisory systems over the past several decades. He chronicles the special complexities and challenges resulting from the Federal Advisory Committee Act-the "open meeting" law-to provide a better understanding of the role of advisory committees and offers valuable lessons to guide their future use. He looks at science advice in the Departments of Defense, State, and Energy; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; the Environmental Protection Agency; and then examines how science advisory mechanisms have worked at the White House. Rather than simply providing a description of structures and institutions, Smith shows the advisory systems in action—how advisory systems work or fail to work in practice. He analyzes how the advisers influence the policymaking process and affect the life of the agencies they serve. Smith concludes with an assessment of the relationship between science advice and American democracy. He explains that the widespread use of outside advisers clearly reflects America's preference for pluralism. By scrutinizing agency plans, goals, and operations, advisers and advisory committees serve a variety of functions and attempt to strike a balance between openness and citizen access to government and the need for discipline and sophisticated expertise in policymaking. At the root of the advisory process is a paradox: scientists are called on because of their special expertise, but they are useful onl
