- News Home
5 December 2013 11:26 am ,
Vol. 342 ,
An animal rights group known as the Nonhuman Rights Project filed lawsuits in three New York courts this week in an...
Researchers have been hot on the trail of the elusive Denisovans, a type of ancient human known only by their DNA and...
Thousands of scientists in the Russian Academy of Sciences (RAS) are about to lose their jobs as a result of the...
Dyslexia, a learning disability that hinders reading, hasn't been associated with deficits in vision, hearing, or...
Exotic, elusive, and dangerous, snakes have fascinated humankind for millennia. They can be hard to find, yet their...
Researchers have sequenced and analyzed the first two snake genomes, which represent two evolutionary extremes. The...
Snake venoms are remarkably complex mixtures that can stun or kill prey within minutes. But more and more researchers...
At age 30, Dutch biologist Freek Vonk has built up a respectable career as a snake scientist. But in his home country,...
- 5 December 2013 11:26 am , Vol. 342 , #6163
- About Us
U.K. Science Advisers Want R-E-S-P-E-C-T
5 November 2009 7:07 pm
The outrage among scientists over the firing of U.K. drug policy adviser David Nutt continues to bubble. Thursday, Martin Rees, the president of the Royal Society, offered his first thoughts on the matter, saying:
Scientific advisers are not there to rubber-stamp policies. Advice should reach ministers before decisions are taken; and when ministers want to reject it, they should discuss it first. Where government does reject scientific evidence, it must explain why openly.
And today, a quickly formed group of leading U.K. scientists, including Rees and former Royal Society President Robert May, call on their government (UKStatement.pdf) to endorse the following "Principles for the Treatment of Independent Scientific Advice":
1. Academic Freedom
*Becoming a member of an independent advisory committee does not reduce the freedom of an adviser to communicate publicly, whether via scholarly publication and conferences, through the general media or to parliament, subject to the restrictions in existing Codes of Practice, notably:
* respecting confidentiality,
* not claiming to speak for the Government, and
* making clear whether they are communicating on behalf of their committees
2. Independence of Operation
* Independent scientific advisory bodies are protected from political and other interference in their work
* In the context of independent scientific advice, disagreement with Government policy and the public articulation and discussion of relevant evidence and issues by members of advisory committees can not be grounds for criticism or dismissal
* Advisory committees need the service of an independent press office
3. Proper Consideration of Advice
* Reports from committees will usually be published and will not normally be criticised or rejected prior to publication
* If the Government is minded to reject a recommendation, the relevant scientific advisory committee will normally be invited to comment privately before a final decision is made
* It is recognised that some policy decisions are contingent on factors other than the scientific evidence, but when expert scientific advice is rejected the reasons should be described explicitly and publicly
* The advice of expert committees does not cease to be valid merely because it is rejected or not reflected in policy