INGSA2014 – Science Advice to Governments

Conference Archive – Panel Discussions

Panel 1:

The process and systems for procuring evidence and developing/delivering scientific advice for government

This session will focus on the process(es) of procuring and synthesising evidence to provide scientific advice in typical policy development situations. It will also consider the various systems in which these processes are embedded. Participants will discuss challenges, opportunities and lessons learnt in terms of:

Information flow: Who requests scientific advice? Who/which institution(s) provide this scientific advice? How is the flow of information organised?
Independence: How to ensure that the advice is unbiased, balanced and credible? What features (structural, cultural, personal, etc.) protect or jeopardise independent and bias-free advice, and how are these handled?

Timeliness: At what point(s) should science advice inform the policy process and what mechanisms help to ensure the right timing?

Impact: How can the impact of scientific advice be assessed?

Panel 2:

Science advice in dealing with crises

Examples such as SARS, bird flu and natural/industrial disasters provide opportunities for science advisors not only to help provide strategic direction to governments, but also to play a key role in public outreach and risk communication.

Participating countries will share ideas from national experience and models of advising in the context of public crises.

Panel 3:

Science advice in the context of opposing political/ideological positions

One of the most difficult situations for science advisors to government is when evidence contradicts entrenched political (ideological) positions, whether these are within national, regional or local governments. Well established examples are seen in debates around controlled substances and public health.

For instance, public health interventions that adopt an evidence-based harm reduction approach are sometimes objectionable to governments and the general public. What models of science advice giving (ex: individual experts; commissioned reports; representative committees) have worked best in participating countries?

Panel 4:

Science advice in the context of opposing political/ideological positions

One of the most difficult situations for science advisors to government is when evidence contradicts entrenched political (ideological) positions, whether these are within national, regional or local governments. Well established examples are seen in debates around controlled substances and public health.

For instance, public health interventions that adopt an evidence-based harm reduction approach are sometimes objectionable to governments and the general public. What models of science advice giving (ex: individual experts; commissioned reports; representative committees) have worked best in participating countries?

Panel 5:

The modalities of science advice: accumulated wisdom

This session will bring the accumulated ideas, challenges and opportunities emerging from the four previous sessions to bear on the practice of science advising. Is there a common model and approach that suits most countries in most situations, including in the international arena?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of the system in different jurisdictions? What are the hallmarks of a good model and the core attributes of the actors within it?

Is there a need for a degree of standardisation (or peer recognition and reciprocity) in the increasingly globalised turn toward government science advising? If so, what are the minimum expectations and how close are we to achieving them?