1.  The British Association for the Advancement of Science is a registered charity incorporated by Royal Charter with membership open to all. It exists to promote better awareness, appreciation and understanding of science, engineering and technology and of their contribution to cultural, economic and social life. Its two major events—the national week of science, engineering and technology in March and its annual meeting in September—involve scientists from many levels and backgrounds (including the social sciences, engineering, mathematics and medicine) and reach wide public audiences both directly and through their extensive media coverage. The Association runs other activities, many of which are designed to stimulate the interest of young people in science and technology.

  2.  Recognising that most of the issues that any government has to grapple with in today's world have significant scientific/technological dimensions, the Association welcomes the review into the scientific advisory system which the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee is undertaking, and is grateful for the invitation to provide an input to this process.

  3.  Because many ministers and officials have little formal scientific background, it is important that means should be available to help ensure that they, nevertheless, recognise issues on which scientific advice is needed, develop their capacities to listen to such advice and to understand its significance. The Chief Scientific Adviser and Departmental Chief Scientists have an important role to play in this process. Because the pressures on ministers are often to achieve short-term objectives and to respond to issues only when there is public concern, it is crucial that the scientific advisers should have the stature and freedom to play a proactive role and take a long-term perspective. It is also important that they retain direct access to the Prime Minister and Departmental ministers respectively.

  4.  While the Chief Scientific Adviser and Chief Scientists have an important role to play in the advisory process, the Government should also consider establishing means for wider and more representative consultation. Ways of "taking the pulse" of the relevant working scientific communities should be developed, for example through the academies of science, engineering and medicine, through scientific societies and engineering institutions, by the appointment of ad hoc groups of experts, or by engaging in wider consultation exercises.

  5.  There should be a suitable range of inputs into such consultation processes. Too often advice is sought only from the obvious organisations and institutions and from a relatively small circle of individuals, while other bodies and individuals with relevant expertise are excluded.

  6.  Care must also be taken to safeguard the independence of the advice offered; there are a growing number of relationships—institutional, financial and political—through which scientists may be inadvertently or inadvertently pressured to provide the advice of vested interests.

  7.  Stronger independent monitoring and cross-checking of advice by professional bodies, Parliamentary Committees, Royal Commissions etc. would be desirable.

  8.  Public confidence in the advisory system and the seriousness with which it is taken has been significantly weakened by what happened in the case of BSE. To engender public confidence, the system must be as open as possible—in line with the present Government's general commitment to openness. People need to know what advice was tendered and how it has been dealt with by government. The advice should be published, in much the same way that the advice of the Advisory Board for the Research Councils on the science budget once was. If the Bank of England can publish minutes its monthly discussions on whether or not to raise interest rates, and the reports of Select Committees and Commissions of Enquiry can be published, it should surely be possible to publish advice on science-related issues.

  9.  Ministers, officials and the public need to recognise that that there are limits to scientific knowledge and understanding; that most scientific advice will deal with relative probabilities and risks, rather than absolute certainties; and that scientists may disagree about the conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence available. Conversely, it must be made clear to scientists that public issues are rarely uni-dimensional and that scientific advice will only be one of may inputs which the decision-makers have to take into account.

  10.  Government should consider making use of the activities of organisations like the British Association, for example its annual meeting, to facilitate greater discussion of science-related public issues, wider consultation on advice which is being tendered, and public dissemination of decisions which have been made and the reasons for them.

  11.  Given the pervasive nature of science in our society, its is important to ensure that there is adequate scientific representation on bodies and committees that are not themselves primarily scientific either within government or which government is responsible for establishing. Examples might be committees related to the National Lottery, NHS trusts, and inter-departmental working parties. This would ensure some scientific expertise in a range of advisory /decision-making situations where it is almost impossible to escape from some scientific content and/or implication.

  12.  Both the Office of Science and Technology and the Chief Scientific Adviser should have a strong cross-departmental role in relation to scientific advice and policy. Doubt still remains as to whether this can be achieved while the OST is part of the DTI. If the OST cannot be moved, consideration should at least be given to locating the Chief Scientific Adviser with a suitable team either in the Cabinet office or in the Prime Minister's Policy Unit.

5 June 1998