Professor John Beddington, Government Chief Scientist.
The House of Lords Science & Technology Select Committee inquiry into the activities of Chief Scientific Advisers (CSAs), which will shortly begin deliberations. In preparation for this the Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE), which quite rightly advocates for better scientific advice to inform policy making, have examined the current state of play for existing government departmental Chief Scientific Advisors. CaSE points out that of the fifteen government departments, only six performed well in the way they made use of CSAs. Only three departments have published the number of meetings between the departmental CSA and the Secretary of State or relevant Minister in the last year, and only four departments have appointed a Scientific Advisory Committee to support the work of their Chief Scientific Advisor.
The best-performing departments were the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) and the Department of Health (DH), with the Department for International Development (DfID), Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC), and Home Office (HO) also scoring highly. Worryingly, the Departments for Culture Media and Sport (DCMS), Transport (DfT), and Business Innovation and Skills (BIS), as well as the Ministry of Defence (MoD), are currently without a Chief Scientific Advisor. There is concern that financial and staffing restrictions on government departments, ministers may be less-inclined to fill CSA vacancies, or downgrade their importance.
Science and engineering have a role to play in virtually every aspect of public policy, so it’s vital that each government department is equipped with a well-supported and fully independent scientific advisor. Even the Treasury has recently recognized this. It seems extraordinary that four departments seem to think they can manage without. It is possible of course to ask for external advice as and when it is felt necessary. But my own experience as a departmental medical advisor in the 1980s and 90s is that they really need advice when they’ve forgotten to ask!
What sprang to mind as I read this thread was, how many of these people are terminated if they don’t connect with the political line of the party in power or who takes them on.
The first and main requirement for any scientific body has to be political freedom. Anything other is a stultification of the truth in all its forms.
To force a man to quit because a past study he wrote shows the policies, forced on the public in that particular matter, were incorrect and not in the best interests of the people, is an outrage. As a result banishment entailed, as it was said the author had not exposed this previous belief and therefore could not lead them the way ‘they wanted’ to be led.
In other words, a government says, unless you commit to our propaganda on issues we want to promote, you cannot be selected for a position to advise. That then, is betraying his own self if he takes up such a position.
When a government, or, people wanting to put them right on matters of importance, can only tell them what they want to hear, then, they are simply propagandists, not honest participants in the quest for truth in the ‘public’ betterment.
Is this to be another set up of this kind?
Baroness Murphy,
In the actual life and mind of any public official in any conceivable system there is a balance between what is good for the competitive advantage of one’s own polity and what is good for some larger entity or entities which may or may not include the human race or the world. Britain’s United Kingdom has the great advantage of the House of Lords in terms of expert, sage and learned advice enshrined in actual power. At the terrible risk of being perceived as a flatterer or a nice guy Britain has in fact got you for insight on medical issues. Imagine how much worse it is in countries which have no such thing nor anything close. Many times these countries borrow their ideas in large part and even perceive falsities about the UK system which contribute to their dumbing down.
I read and comment here on LOTB and on Lord Norton’s private electronic fiefdom partly to make my own modest realms of influence aware that sages, viziers, prophets, bishops and Excellencies are not all obsolete ideas replaced by the glories of the uniformity of idiocy. Rather, limited human beings such as yourself (see how the nice guy thing was premature) aspire to fill these roles as best thay can. While complete idiots have many wonderful qualities and advantages they are not the only possible political ideal…
Summers,
Well yes of course The UK is backward but not half as backwards as the really backwards eh? But North America, for you? Forwards!?
Gareth Howell,
In this country a doctor is likely to be sued if he does not spend a fortune sufficient to keep two hundred workers healthy for a decade to determine his patient has some rare disease we probably cannot cure. This is a country where 46 people suffer ruined health for everyone saved by some practices deemed the most aggressive and best for curing some diseases. I have grounds for delivering some cautionary tales to those who want uniform high standards as to where they can end up going. Baroness Young is not likely to lead that march far and yet –yes I dare to caution her about the first steps in what may end up to be such a journey.
Gareth Howell,
This is my second in a queue and who knows how they will emerge. I made a relevant remark about Baroness Young’s post in the first but almost to the detriment of addressing this post. Baroness Murphy’s recent post reminds me again of the value she doubts herself having and my recent reply to you is an illustration both of my confusion and more tellingly of the confusion that results when the learned community in a field is not well represented. We already have gone too far to be saved by half measures and modest approaches…
Just a note to point out that the Ministry of Defence have extended the appointment of Professor Sir Mark Welland, their CSA, to the end of this year to cover the gap that might have arisen if he retired from that post in April as originally intended. I’ll take that as a good sign they intend to appoint another CSA soon.
The MOD has vast number of scientific advisers,
trained in the “science” or art of killing with sophisticated machinery.
Having a “chief” one is probably only a matter of detail or nomenclature.
The RMCS Shrivenham trains vast numbers of such scientific advisers. They probably just don’t want to talk about it.
i have always thought of CMS are a very interesting chat committee serving the commercial interests of those ransacking the BBC, which on recent reflection has not been such a bad thing.
Precisely! The MoD has shedloads of civil servants and might have difficulty housing a Chief Scientific Adviser, though I believe Mr Werrity’s office should now be free.
The number of times a CSA meets the minister is NOT a sound test of effectiveness. The CSA may be more succinct on paper, may work via the Permanent Secretary or may have a hundred other reasons how better to communicate what needs communicating. I wholly agree with Maude that a CSA must feel free to give advice trenchantly without being dismissed, but most important of all to ensure that what is said is based on sound science and contributes to evidence-based decision-making and counters any trends towards decision-based evidence-seeking.
Maude Elwes, Yes I agree there is always a danger that advice which does not suit the prevailing politics will be ignored but the best scientific advisors make clear that their advice on the science is one thing, what politicians do with it is quite another. It is legitimate for governments to recognise the truth of a scientific argument and yet to come to a policy conclusion which is influenced by public opinion, the mood of the media and a host of other matters like international agreements. And quite often the advice is buried in a ‘too difficult’ box until a more favorable moment arrives. A canny advisor plays a long game on some issues.
Frank WSlll, as I have said before I am a bit ambivalent about the value of expertise in the second chamber but I am convinced of the value of advisors in ministerial departments.
“quite often the advice is buried in a ‘too difficult’ box until a more favorable moment arrives” and therein lies the sad truth about the state of politics. Our ‘leaders’ act against the public will when it suits their needs i.e. Iraq, rampant austerity, bank deregulation… but when there is true public benefit to be had those very same ‘leaders’ state that they “do not believe” that mountains of scientific advice is the best option.. even for decades old failed policies. It is frankly sickening.
If science and engineering even had 5% more input than they currently do into policy decisions we would all be far better off for it… imagine that, policy scientifically tested to see what works and then implemented with the backing of an evidence base… -sigh- well one can dream…
@Baroness Murphy:
And are you happy with that political duplicity? Do you feel that is in the public interest to ignore truth in favour of an idealism that is unsafe?
As in the case I highlighted. The adviser knew what the government policy was on the matter in question, he had studied and knew it was unsafe in content, yet, was removed from his post as the policy of ‘idealism’ was considered more important than the health and education of the population.
That is utter madness.
Externalities;
exclusivism;
scientific-focus;
professionally-exigent-‘one-eyed-ness-es’ –
why, neither scientists nor top-academic thinkers, logicians, formal-argumentation and moral-reasoning experts can stand up to the rife dishonesty and multi-corruption by governance-empowered organisations and individuals that is already consuming two Earths-worth of lifesupports so that the prevailing human overpopulation of 7 billion can survive as-at-today,
and has further planned to increase the population to 11 billion consuming three (3) Earths-worth of resources by 2050 ?
So how fit-for-purpose are these ‘excellent scientists’, in setting Public Policy, as you Baroness Murphy and no doubt an overwhelming majority of other Peers and MPs are claiming ?
or come to that even more real-life-on-the-ground fact of the matter, how fit is any Set of you to recognise every-one’s Basic Needs, and whatsoever affordable and sustainworthy Hows have been submitted for best-meeting those real Needs ?
< to 11 billion consuming three (3) Earths-worth of resources by 2050 ?
20% of all food now comes from inorganic sources, so may the expanding population expand, if it wants to.
The poorest parts of the world have the fastest expanding populations, so they must enjoy something!
Perhaps we need to do more e-research before we reply to questions, about government, which are fairly specialized.
You could look into why anyone in their right minds thinks computer software can cope with all medical conditions, and the effects of them on people (and combinations of them etc)
ie – LIMA as used by the DWP.
And why, it is not available to the public to prove it is not fit for purpose.
Commercial reasons are being used to deny its release? Since when does money come over natural justice in this country?
Think about the way the Lords operate, and ask yourself it if makes sense if you were to operate under the same basis.
Apparently the Lords has people with lots of experiences and special skills. That’s the advantage we keep being told of the Quango.
Not quite as clear cut though, when you ask the question, do they have a hairdresser in the Lords? Major industry in the UK, you would have thought it was useful to have a hairdresser to address the issue of what governments do to that profession. Not one. [It’s failed politicians and people who brown nose the PM, or donate lots of cash]
So its a bit like Michael Jackson. He needs a doctor permanently on hand. The Lords needs some car mechanics, hair dressers, check out girls and all the other things permanently on hand for their expertise.
Then they can all vote on medical bills and vice versa.
Lord Blagger,
I will not ask you if your nom de plume is a contraction of blackguard and blogger and if so why, but I do wonder about it at times. I feel you most respond to my comments and I dread deeply trying to cram a ten year argumentative discussion between acquaintances who disagree into a blog comment stream.
However, I think that this is an issue that goes very much to the depth of one’s cosmology, political paradigms and anthropology in the broadest sense. The tenor of your comments indicates that you do no believe that diverse learned people trying hard can achieve in prolonged discussion a wisdom which is far beyond mere expertise. But for others like myself that kind of sustained dialogue is one of the most important human pursuits.
@Frank, whilst I genuinely believe that the HoL produces far better and more rational debate than the Commons ever can, that does not mean it will always produce “wisdom”. There are many aspects of society that science can empirically demonstrate as running counter to intuition.. or ideology. The problem is that long-held beliefs, even by people with such wisdom as the Lords, can often override rational, measured and evidence-based approaches. It is FAR worse in the commons where a simple ‘belief’ is enough to overrule mountains of peer-reviewed evidence – just to appease certain sectors of the press.
So, do we want our society to genuinely improve, in light of what does and doesn’t work… or do we just want to keep taking ideological-based, media-friendly pot-shots until we get there and the harm to society in the interim be damned?! I favour the scientific approach, it will produce better policy and thus a more equal, fair and just society. That is why science and engineering inputs are urgently needed in policy.. lest we pine after the dark ages..?
jake: I agree: I think the advantage of the Lords is that it is an arena in which ideas can be challenged and tested and not simply asserted. However, good debate may not always produce the wisest outcomes, for the reasons you mention.
Lord Norton & Jake,
I never used the concept of always. In fact difficult things of universal application seldom approach consistency. The question is whether a framing understanding will be sought as a serious goal or not. No serious person has believed wise counsels in council always produced good results. Ancient literature of cultures that placed emphasis on such things offers many cautionary tales of bad results from counsels of the great in councils of the wise.
@Lord Blagger:
I think you should worry a bit more about the Prime Minister being the soul mate Michael Jackson who surrounding himself with nincompoops not remotely up to the job. At least Michael thought he was hiring a competent doctor when he took on the idiot who overdosed him.
This man we have, of the independent school, we managed to foist himself on us, can’t even distinguish between a baby with no experience and a competent accountant. Yet, in these times of devastating fiscal explosion, his judgment tells him he must place a girl in the Treasury, with only English Lit. and a stint as as an admin girl at Deloitte’s, before this amazing rise to power. Once again, that old chestnut, ‘political correctness’ that has to be endured to keep us safe from jokes past gone, enters stage right.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052046/No-Prime-Minster-Cameron-gave-MP-aged-29-job-Treasury–wrongly-thinking-accountant.html
Never mind, George Osborne is happy, she, we are told is a friend of his.
Regardless, we should be very worried indeed. Surely such a selection should have infuriated his ‘experienced colleagues’ as the insult to their ability is humiliating in the extreme. Is this really the best we have in that lower House?
But, then again, perhaps he had the similar looking Edwina Curry in mind when he bumped into this girl. And taking a tip from John Major decided to get them in early, to assure a successful future.
http://www.specialistspeakers.com/?p=1655
how many of these people are terminated if they don’t connect with the political line of the party in power or who takes them on.
None. They are civil service posts.
The first and main requirement for any scientific body has to be political freedom. Anything other is a stultification of the truth in all its forms.
There are “sides” to all arguments, take DEFRA animal ethology for example. On the left “animals think”; on the right “animals do not have souls and do not think”, so the remark is not entirely without substance but in terms of who is selected as Chief Govt Adviser the point is not entirely sensible.
The fact that DfT is without a chief adviser at the moment may mean that the scientific dept of the DfT works better as a team than
with a supremo. I don’t know.
What I do know is that DfT can be a highly
scientific dept from the point of road and general travel statistics.
The people doing the work in all the departments have made it their careers, and may have been at it for 30 years or so.
They don’t need politics!
When they do, they go and have a day out in parliament, and give some evidence to a select committee. They can be very convivial meetings indeed.
@G.Howell:
‘None. They are civil service posts.’
If you believe this retort, then you are either naive, or, you swim with the sharks.
Here is a small selection that substantiates my opinion. These jobs are all government related.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/07/government-drug-adviser-anti-gay
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2052319/Adrian-Smith-demoted-backing-gay-marriage-criticising-new-law-Facebook.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1194454/Registrar-demoted-receptionist-refused-marry-gay-couples.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4409168/Nurse-suspended-for-offering-to-pray-for-patients-recovery.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8457642/Electrician-who-refuses-to-take-cross-from-van-faces-sack.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/feb/02/nurse-prayer-suspended
And it isn’t just here, this is happening right across Europe and the USA.
http://www.rnw.nl/english/video/registrar-fired-over-refusal-marry-gays
This kind of backlash is only going to grow. And the reason is, government or the State, cannot force its citizens to accept what is, to the people involved, unacceptable.
And if they were smart historians they would know that very well. People will die for what they believe in. Take the news from the Arab Spring if you feel that is wrong.
How many scientific advisors have any links past or present to companies such as unum or similar?
How many of the research groups/think tanks etc they rely on, have such links to?
I like that quip!
Lord norton’s private electronic fiefdom! very witty!
Maude I was very dubious about the appointment of the Appointments committee in the late 90s which seemed to be vastly over weight in favour of Zion, but then even the Welsh had their days in Parliament in the time of Harold Wilson, every other appointment being a Welshman, and dad had no objection to that.
Gar,
I read your comments and in brevity in print the shades of irony, sarcasm and mild amusement are indistinguishable so I will assume the last and say “merci”.
@Gar:
Yes, I liked it.
But you see, Harold was quite Gar Gar! And look what that drove him to. His Welsh mates didn’t come to his aid did they? So what a useless exercise that turned out to be.
The message being, never trust politicians will be on your side when the chips are down….. Werrity!