The role and responsibility of expert bodies and individual scientists The GSF report Developed by an Expert Group with workshops survey and interviews Overview of deliberative science advisory structures across countries ID: 659661
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "Scientific Advice for policy-making" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
Scientific Advice for policy-making
The role and responsibility of expert bodies and individual scientistsSlide2
The GSF report
Developed by an Expert Group with workshops, survey
and interviewsOverview of deliberative science advisory structures across countriesAnalysis of different phases of advisory processesPotential legal liability of advisorsSpecific challenges related to crisesInternational coordinationThe role(s) of civil society
2Slide3
A ‘check’ list for science advice
An effective and trustworthy science advisory process needs to:
Have a clear remit, with defined roles and responsibilities for its actors
Involve the relevant actors – scientists, policy-makers and other stakeholders, as necessaryProduce advice that is sound, unbiased and legitimate
3Slide4
a. Remit, roles and responsibilities
Need to be clear about:
Advisory versus decision-making roles
Who communicates to public, when and how?Legal responsibilities and potential liabilities (which depend on structure remit, jurisdiction and behaviour)Necessary institutional support relative to remit
4Slide5
b. Involving the relevant actors
Include all relevant scientific disciplines
Scientists and customer(s) jointly frame questions
Transparent processes and procedures, e.g. for declaring conflicts of interestEffective procedures for international exchange/cooperation5Slide6
c. Ensuring credibility & acceptability
Based on best available science
Assess and communicate uncertainties (probabilities)
Independent of political (or other vested interest group) interests6Slide7
STI
Ministerial session on science advice
Daejeon, Korea, October, 2015
Daejeon Korea, October, 2015
7Slide8
Recognition that many different structures, individuals and processes
Strong support for OECD principles/check list and need for common framework
Need to improve exchange of data and information in international crises
Need mechanisms to coordinate scientific advice and reach international “consensus” in crisesProviding science advice should be valued an in academic reward systemsMinisterial outcomes
8Slide9
9Slide10
Recommendations
Responsible authorities should:
Define clear and transparent frameworks and rules of procedure for their advisory processes and mechanisms
Establish effective mechanisms for ensuring appropriate and timely advice in crisis situations
10Slide11
Recommendations
Ensure coherence between national and international scientific advisory mechanisms related to complex global societal challenges
Implement measures that build societal trust in science advice for policy-making
11