The Scientific Advisor in a Politicized World

Main Article Content

David H. Slater Ben J. M. Ale

Abstract

The role of scientific advice and the scientific advisor in policy development and execution has been studied and described in many documents, but seemingly always from the point of view of the policy makers. Questions that are discussed in that context are amongst others, how to get unbiased advice, how to know whether an advisor is competent, how to select the subjects for which advice is needed and how to get a complete picture of the problem. In this paper we argue that the scientific advisor needs to consider some other questions too: Am I unbiased; Does the “client” try to influence the scientists’ point of view and if so what to do? How certain is the advice? How to convey uncertainties? How to prevent the user of the advice letting it sound more certain than it is? What to do if the client does not follow the advice but suggests he does? How to prevent the client hiding behind the advisor? If the advisor thinks the problem has more angles than are within his expertise, how to convey that message? How to deal with other views, whether scientific or otherwise? How to deal with confidentiality demands? In the remainder of the paper, we discuss these issues, using actual political and societal examples.

Article Details

How to Cite
SLATER, David H.; ALE, Ben J. M.. The Scientific Advisor in a Politicized World. Medical Research Archives, [S.l.], v. 10, n. 5, june 2022. ISSN 2375-1924. Available at: <https://esmed.org/MRA/mra/article/view/2799>. Date accessed: 30 june 2022. doi: https://doi.org/10.18103/mra.v10i5.2799.
Section
Research Articles

References

1. Jonkman SN, Kok M, Vrijling JK (2008) Flood Risk Assessment in the Netherlands: A Case Study for Dike Ring South Holland, Risk Analysis, Vol. 28, No. 5, 2008, DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.2008.01103.x
2. Jonkman SN. Hillen M, Nicholls R, Kanning W, Ledden M (2013). Costs of Adapting Coastal Defences to Sea-Level Rise— New Estimates and Their Implications. Journal of Coastal Research. 290. 1212-1226. 10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-12-00230.1.
3. Ale BJM (1998) The management of third-party risk around a major airport, in A. Mosleh and R.A. Barieds PSAM Probabilistic Safety Analysis and Management 4, Springer (1998)
4. Ale, BJM., Piers W. (1999), Dealing with third party risk around a major airport, in L.H.J. Goossensed Risk Analysis, Facing the New Millennium, Delft University Press, Delft, ISBN 90 407 1954 3
5. Ale BJM Piers M (2000) The assessment and management of third party risk around a major airport, JHazMat, vol 71 nos 1-3,pag 1-16, ISSN 0304 3894
6. Renn O (1990) Public Responses to the Chernobyl accident, Journal of Environmental Psychology 10, 151-167
7. Ale, BJM, Slater, DH, Hartford, DND (2021) Vaccination with vector type vaccines – is it worth the risk?, Medical Research Archives vol 9 issue 6. DOI: 10.18103/mra.v9i6.247
8. Ale, BJM., Slater, DH., & Hartford, DND. (2022) The ethical dilemmas of risky decisions. Risk Analysis, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/risa.13893
9. HSE (2000) Policy Risk and Science. Securing and using Scientific advice, HSE contract research report 295/2000, HMSO, Norwich, Crown copyright (2000)
10. ISO (2009) ISO 31000:2009, First Edition: Risk management - Principles and guidelines, ISO, 978-9267109121
11. JRC (2006) Joint Research Centre: Robust Science for Policy Making. A guideline towards integrity and veracity in scientific support and advice. Report CA0655.
12. Holmes J, Clark R (2008) Enhancing the use of science in environmental policy-making and regulation, environmental science & policy 11, 702 – 711
13. NN (2022) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_L%27Aquila_earthquake (as per 7/3/2022)
14. OECD (2015) “Scientific Advice for Policy Making: The Role and Responsibility of Expert Bodies and Individual Scientists”, OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers, No. 21, OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5js33l1jcpwb-en
15. SAPEA (2019) Science Advice for Policy by European Academies. Making sense of science for policy under conditions of complexity and uncertainty. Berlin: SAPEA. https://doi.org/10.26356/MASOS
16. Wilsdon, J., Allen, K., & Paulavets, K. (2014). Science advice to governments: diverse systems, common challenges. Auckland: ICSU/Office of the PM’s Chief Science Adviser. https://dpmc.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2021-10/pmcsa-Synthesis-Report_Science-Advice-to-Governments_August-2014.pdf (as per 8/3/2022)
17. Van Dijk HFG, van Rongen E, Eggermint, G, Lebret E, Bijker WE, Timmermans DRM (2011) The role of scientific advisory bodies in precaution-based risk governance illustrated with the issue of uncertain health effects of electromagnetic fields, Journal of Risk Research, Vol. 14, No. 4, April 2011, 451–466
18. DGRI (2019) Group of Scientific Advisors, Scientific advice to European Policy in a Complex World, scientific opinion No 5, sep 2019; ISBN 978-92-76-12558-7
19. Spruit P, Knol AB, Vasileiadou E, Devilee J, Lebret E, Petersen AC (2014) Roles of scientists as policy advisers on complex issues: A literature review, environmental science & policy 402014 16 – 25
20. Spruit P, Knol AB, Petersen AC, Lebert E (2019) Expert Views on Their Role as Policy Advisor: Pilot Study for the Cases of Electromagnetic Fields, Particulate Matter, and Antimicrobial Resistance, Risk Analysis, (Vol. 39, No. 5, 2019)
21. Atkinson, P., Gobat, N., Lant, S., Mableson, H., Pilbeam, C., Solomon, T., Tonkin-Crine, S., & Sheard, S. (2020). Understanding the policy dynamics of COVID-19 in the UK: Early findings from interviews with policy makers and health care professionals. Social science & medicine1982, 266, 113423. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113423
22. RIVM (2020) Aerius, https://www.rivm.nl/aerius as per 11/3/2022 and https://www.aerius.nl/nl (as per 11/03/2022)
23. Adegeest, L (2021) Problems with the calculation of Nitrogen deposition by airtraffic. https://satl-lelystad.nl/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/aerius-warmte-inhoud-gesjoemel-stikstof-depositie.pdf; https://satl-lelystad.nl/stikstof/ (as per 11/03/2022)
24. Moore-Brick. M (2019) Grenfell Tower Inquiry, phase 1 report, OGL, HMSO, UK, ISBN 978-1-5286-1602-7 https://assets.grenfelltowerinquiry.org.uk/GTI%20-%20Phase%201%20full%20report%20-%20volume%201.pdf (as per 15/03/2022)
25. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garnock_Court_fire (as per 15/03/2022)
26. Hackitt J (2018) Building a Safer Future Independent Review of Building Regulations and Fire Safety, OGL, HMSO, UK, ISBN 978-1-5286-0293-8
27. Carrington, J. (2019) 'Class 0' and the End of Government’s Guidance on Building Regulations. Available at: https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/housing-after-grenfell/blog/2019/01/class-0-and-end-governments-guidance-building-regulations (as per 15/03/2022)
28. Van Dissel J (2022) Presentatie Tweede Kamer https://www.tweedekamer.nl/downloads/document?id=97f5049b-b821-4a33-a451-754de4ae7dd0&title=presentatie%20van%20dhr.%20Van%20Dissel%20-%20RIVM.pdf (as per 15/03/2022)
29. https://www.c19redteam.nl/ (as per 15/03/2022)
30. https://artsencollectief.nl/ (as per 15/03/2022)
31. https://coronadashboard.rijksoverheid.nl/landelijk/vaccinaties (as per 15/03/2022)
32. https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations (as per 15/03/2022)
33. OvV (2022) Approach to COVID-19 crisis – Part 1: through to September 2020 https://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/page/16666/approach-to-covid-19-crisis-%E2%80%93-part-1-through-to-september-2020 (as per 15/03/2022)
34. Hopkins A, Foxen A, Olivier K, Costigan G (2021) Science and advice in the UK, The foundation for Science and Technology, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1019888/Science_Advice_in_the_UK.pdf (as per 9/3/2022)
35. Kahneman, D (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow, New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.
36. Gluckman, P (2018) The role of evidence and expertise in policy-making: the politics an d practice of science advice, Journal & Proceedings of the Royal Society of New South Wales, vol. 151, part 1, pp. 91–101. ISSN 0035-9173/18/010091-11
37. Ale BJM, Kluin MHA, Koopmans IM (2018), Safety in the Dutch chemical industry 40 years after Seveso Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries Volume 49 Pages 61-67
38. Fuhrer J, Cova F (2020) “Quick and dirty”: Intuitive cognitive style predicts trust in Didier Raoult and his hydroxychloroquine-based treatment against COVID-19, “Quick and dirty”: Intuitive cognitive style predicts trust in Didier Raoult and his hydroxychloroquine-based treatment against COVID-19
39. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, Scientific Advice and Evidence Based Policy Making, Seventh Report of Session (2005–06), Volume I, Report, together with formal minutes, House of Commons, UK, 26 oktober (2006.)
40. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ab_Osterhaus
41. Sahibzada, K (2019) How to Resist the Lure of Overconfidence, A practical guide to putting things in perspective, Scientific American, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/how-to-resist-the-lure-of-overconfidence/ (as per 19/03/2022)
42. Aven T, Renn O (2018) Improving government policy on risk: Eight key principles, Reliability Engineering and System Safety 1762018 230–241

Most read articles by the same author(s)