This consultation addresses two important issues: the processes and structures the Government uses to obtain and consider scientific advice; and the health impacts of mobile phones. With regard to the former issue, the Society has provided, and will continue to provide, advice to Government and Parliamentary committees. In particular, I would like to draw your attention to the two responses prepared for this inquiry to date: The Scientific Advisory System (June 1998) and Scientific advice on GM foods (April 1999) copies of which are enclosed[26]. Furthermore, the Society will shortly be publishing its submission on Science and Society to the House of Lords Select Committee which is also relevant to this consultation.

  The Royal Society recognises the fundamental importance of the generic questions being addressed by the current inquiry on the use of scientific advice by Government. In particular we support the Chief Scientific Adviser's emphasis on the importance of integrity in the gathering and analysis of factual evidence, openness in the solicitation and interpretation of advice, acceptance of scientific limitations and uncertainties and the need to provide public explanations as to how advice has been applied during the development of policy.

  Controversy associated with some scientific issues has undoubtedly increased with greater public access to information and, with it, calls for government intervention. If public policy on scientific issues is to be accepted, it is of paramount importance that the public have an understanding of and confidence in the underlying science. In this regard all scientific advice does not have the same authority. It is essential that the results of scientific research used in public policy meet the highest quality standards. This can only be ensured by the peer review process. Furthermore, it is also important to convey the concept of uncertainty and the limits of scientific understanding to a wider public. In the absence of accessible and reliable scientific information, the public may form their opinions based on the agendas and personal beliefs of special interest groups that are able to to exploit public concerns to their own ends.

  We have not had the opportunity to review the evidence in detail. On the face of it, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions at present about the health hazard of mobile phones. We would support a careful epidemiological study in which alternative influences on health are examined alongside the use of mobile phones. As in all studies, thorough analysis of alternatives can lead to surprisingly robust conclusions.

  We look forward to seeing your report.

17 June 1999