European-based speakers representing the fields of nuclear energy, genetically modified organisms, and harm reduction science in tobacco made the plea on 18 February at the Annual Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science held in Vancouver, Canada. The panelists, each with pertinent experience of real-life scientific support to policy-making, offered first-hand advice on best practices and pitfalls when architecting science policy on both sides of the Atlantic. The 18 February symposium, titled "Exploding Myths on Reactor Security, Harm Reduction, and Genetically Modified Organisms," featured a call for greater integrity, openness, clarity and public engagement on difficult to communicate issues of global significance. A key message was that science and policy do have a crucial relationship. But scientists should not think that they are policy-makers. Equally, science must remain independent. 'Bad science' and spin must be challenged more. Science coming out of industry must be trusted more. The symposium was moderated by the Irish Chief Scientific Advisor and Champion of EuroScience Open Forum 2012, Professor Patrick Cunningham.
The four central recommendations and detailed consensus statement in annex reflect common findings when examining the seldom seen science behind some of today's most controversial public policy issues, namely, nuclear energy, crop innovations (GMOs), and harm reduction (tobacco). Panelists asked: With approximately 65 nuclear plants under construction worldwide, Fukushima or not, why is it so difficult to separate fact from fiction on nuclear reactor safety and waste management solutions? With over 150 million hectares of biotech crops produced worldwide, what are the known and unknown implications of innovation in biotechnology and genetic engineering? With the World Health Organization predicting over 1 billion smoking-related deaths this century, isn't tobacco harm reduction the greatest public health imperative today? Is the WHO's quit or die message enough?
Accepting that societal problems are not necessarily problems with purely scientific solutions, speakers argued that calculated risks are fundamental to realizing proven benefits and that innovative science is ever more prevalent and important. They strongly urged the wider scientific community to think – and act – in the global interest, while pressing the re-set button for 'evidence-based policy' above 'policy-biased evidence'. Keen not to assume that scientific consensus can exist or to frame issues as science versus the public with science in the right, the overriding consensus was that more needs to be done to guard against the misuse of science in policy-making.
Organized by Brussels-based SciCom – Making Sense of Science, the symposium brought together prominent European scientists typically leading teams working towards science-led solutions that go to the heart of citizen priorities and concerns.
In addition to the Irish Chief Scientific Advisor, Professor Patrick Cunningham, these included: former nuclear inspector and Director-General of the European Commission's in-house science service, Dr. Roland Schenkel; the "GMO Detective" supporting EU-wide enforcement in food policy, Dr Guy van den Eede of the Joint Research Centre's Institute for Health and Consumer Protection; and Dr David O'Reilly, Board Member responsible for Group Research & Development at British American Tobacco. Further discussants included science communication experts Dr Carl-Johan Sundberg of the Karolinska Institutet, Sweden and Hungarian science editor, Istvan Palugyai.
Scientists must sharpen their message and engage the public
The Vancouver discussions underscored how the role of scientific advice in policy-making worldwide is growing, the recent appointment of Scottish Professor Anne Glover to the new role of Chief Scientific Advisor to the European Commission being a case in point. Yet, governments face challenges in terms of how science is viewed and used with the trust gap between public perceptions and scientific realities widening.
Recent episodes, such as the Japanese tsunami and subsequent nuclear disaster, the volcanic ash crisis in Europe, the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico or the failed Russian Mars probe are prominent examples in the public eye. Yet, daily legislative decisions about the foods we eat, the forms of nicotine or tobacco we use, or how the energy we require is produced are just as important. Impartial policy-makers want to know the facts and receive independent advice. Yet, faced with claims and counter claims from interest groups - including science - this is not always obvious. And when the scientific evidence is 'indisputable', decision-making is often muddied by a constant information/misinformation battle-ground. Panelists framed this as a Cain and Abel contest between those supporting "evidence-based policies" (establish the science first, then inform the policy) versus those supporting "policy-biased evidence" (establish the policy first, then find the science to support it).
Speakers used thematic case-studies to explode popular myths about nuclear energy, crop innovations and tobacco harm reduction. The focus was less on the pros and cons of each, but more so on how the influence of science could be sharpened.
Dr Roland Schenkel, nuclear energy expert highlighted that: "Historically in debates on nuclear energy, the public plays the critical role in affecting policy. It's a straight 'for' or 'against' issue. Yet, the evolutionary science behind reactor safety and waste management solutions is poorly explained". He added: "A key role of science leaders today is to accurately inform the public and policy-makers and aid in their understanding of policy implications. The basic question for consumers is: how can I be sure that this energy source is safe? The basic question for scientists is: how can I untangle the basic facts from values and social and economic considerations?"
Dr David O'Reilly, harm reduction exponent stressed that: "It is right that science and scientists be guided by values of objectivity, integrity and transparency and that our work is continuously evaluated by our peers. Scientists, whether they work for the academic or corporate worlds, should seek to contribute to the scientific information that is so important to the formation of sound policy. And although challenging, scientists and politicians should avoid creating unnecessary angst as a means of motivating public support for particular science policies or indeed to obtain funding or votes."
Dr Guy van den Eede, plant science expert commented that: "The evolution versus revolution debate in biotechnology and engineering often misses the profound interconnectivity between decades-long advances in science and addressing global challenges in climate, energy, agriculture and health". He added: "The GMO story in Europe versus other regions of the world lays bare how government decisions are ultimately political with science just one element in decision-making".
Dr Carl-Johan Sundberg, communications expert concluded that: "From the ripples of the Japanese nuclear disaster to a smoking cessation campaign in Australia or a GMO ban in Austria, information and misinformation are instant".
Dr Istvan Palugyai, science journalist expert added: "The challenge for science journalists in an increasingly global knowledge society seems to be that if you can't convince them, confuse them".
Irish Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor Patrick Cunningham, in summing up, said that: "In policy decisions, important factors beyond the reach of science are often involved: fear, hype, ignorance, profit, resentment, economic and political advantage. And science does not always have clear answers. However, science and scientists have a special claim to be heard, provided they are committed to:
- Integrity: to uphold the inherent honesty of scientific enquiry and debate
- Openness: to keep the lab door open, and making clear any special interests
- Clarity: to speak in terms the public can understand
- Engagement: to demonstrate that we take our duty to society seriously."
He added: "At the same time, policymakers should encourage scientists to speak out even when their research or assessment may be unpopular. Scientists should learn to stand up, shout up and when necessary, shut up. The voice of the rational middle ground should be louder."
- Aidan Gilligan: firstname.lastname@example.org; Tel +32 (0)474042602
- Speaker bios and presentations: www.aaas.org
- Useful links: www.jrc.ec.europa.eu; www.bat-science.com; www.chiefscientificadviser.ie
ADVANCE CONSENSUS STATEMENT
PROFESSOR PATRICK CUNNINGHAM; DR ROLAND SCHENKEL; DR GUY VAN DEN EEDE, DR DAVID O'REILLY; DR CARL-JOHAN SUNDBERG; MR ISTVAN PALUGYAI
SCIENCE AND POLICY – A CRUCIAL RELATIONSHIP
1. Science is a fundamental pillar of the knowledge-based society. Science provides innovation, technological development, and ultimately benefits to humanity. Science is also a value per se, expanding the frontiers of knowledge and should not only be judged in economic terms.
2. Science can help make better policies. In an ever more complex and globalised economy and society, its importance is growing. Yet, it is just one element in decision-making. Governmental decisions are ultimately political. Contrary to scientists, policy-makers are elected, which gives them the right (and the duty) to take decisions.
3. The dialogue between science and policy is not straight forward. Policy-makers have multiple sources of solicited and unsolicited advice, thus science does not speak with one voice. Scientific evidence is not always welcomed by policy-makers, which can lead to it being ignored or distorted.
WHAT WE EXPECT FROM THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY
4. Science must be independent and transparent. Vested interests must be disclosed and conflicts of interest avoided. Science must have an inherent integrity and quality, both individually and as a whole, underpinned by continuous peer review. It should not be optimistic or pessimistic but accurate and strive for greater inter- and multi-disciplinarity.
5. Stronger emphasis must be given to the inclusion of social sciences to improve understanding of how the public may react or adapt. This will further help scientists understand their role in society. Their collective wisdom is essential in more proactively helping policy-makers to get things right. Science must accept that such inputs are often required ad-hoc, as there is not always time for tailor-made studies or optimal solutions.
6. Scientists must learn to use the established channels for providing policy advice more effectively, be less aloof and perhaps less arrogant. In so doing, science must enhance its voice, be courageous in policy debates, and get better organized to ensure more accurate representation of its findings. This requires greater understanding of, and earlier engagement with, the general public, private sector and non-governmental organizations who are equal stakeholders.
WHAT WE EXPECT FROM THE POLICY-MAKING COMMUNITY
7. Policy-makers must be receptive to scientific advice, even when this advice is uncomfortable. They should involve scientists at all stages in the policy-making cycle and pose the right questions in a timely fashion, as the quality of advice can be determined by the necessary speed of response.
8. Policy-makers have to challenge science to deliver on their public investment. For the science and policy relationship to work, policy-makers must not look at aspirations only, but should define explicit goals.
9. Policy-makers should consult more widely and learn from best practices and pitfalls encountered elsewhere. In particular, they should keep their door open and more readily include the private/corporate sector and civil society groups/NGOs in public dialogue on scientific evidence. Yet, they should be mindful of the possible effects of over consultation and the possible dilution of sound science.
WHAT WE EXPECT FROM THE PUBLIC, INDUSTRY AND INTEREST GROUPS
10. The public must be more trusting of science and be made to understand that societal problems are not necessarily problems with purely scientific solutions. Crucially, they need to value innovative science and accept that calculated risks are fundamental to realizing proven benefits. The public plays a critical role as policy-makers are largely elected and public views usually determine what positions policy-makers will take or support, sometimes against the grain of what the scientific evidence is telling us. This explains why industry and interest groups spend so much time and resources trying to influence public opinion. Scientists must learn to find transparent ways and means to counter-balance this if the messages being passed are scientifically incorrect. Even so, scientists must realize that scientific consensus may not exist and avoid framing issues as science versus the public with science in the right.
11. Industry is the largest investor in science and has every right to have its voice heard and to expect that the policy-making framework is set up to facilitate its success which is both economic and societal. Industry should strive for better practice in disclosing its vested interests and avoid conflicts of interest when engaging with external scientists and policy-makers. Above all, industrial research should be underpinned by an inherent integrity and quality. It should avoid a battle-ground mentality and the promotion of public disinformation to muddle the scientific picture when competitors or policy-makers appear to be going in a direction it may not prefer.
12. Interest groups similarly have every right to have their voice heard as guardians of the common good or legitimate sectoral interests and are a crucial cog in the policy-making cycle. They must be transparent and accountable but above all, responsible for the information and misinformation they disseminate to suit their purpose. When interest groups clearly get it right, both the scientific and policy-making community should give them the credit they deserve. When they get it clearly wrong, they should learn to hold their hands up and contribute to dismantling the public myths about science they have helped create.
WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN
13. Scientific advice must be more involved in all stages of the policy cycle: from policy anticipation and development to policy implementation and evaluation. Particularly in Europe, scientists need to be more readily seconded into political circles (Ministerial Cabinet's, EU Commissioner Cabinet's, Assistant teams to Members of the European Parliament etc). This interaction will help bridge the gap between scientists who tend to think long-term and policy-makers who tend to think in short-term categories (election cycles). At the same time, scientists think on all spatial scales – from the atom to the universe – while most policy-makers rather care for their constituency.
14. Policy-making must learn to cope with the speed of scientific development and include greater foresight and policy anticipation. Aspects of future risk and uncertainty are particularly complex and difficult for policy-makers to grapple with. Science should be more forthright in providing advice on the costs and benefits of action or inaction. Similarly, the precautionary principle must not be misused for impeding technological progress.
15. There is a need to build greater trust between scientists, policy-makers and other societal actors through a long-term, sustained and participatory dialogue – nobody should be excluded or left behind. There is a need for institutions that can serve as "brokers" and "interpreters" between the science and policy arenas. Global challenges need global solutions. It is therefore of the utmost importance to join efforts globally to provide the best possible scientific advice.