Abstract
This chapter summarizes the scientific advisory process by presenting a model that combines all of the considerations and tools previously described. The model starts with a holistic approach to the scientific advisory process by zooming out through a systems analysis to get a broad picture of a policy problem within the entire science-policy ecosystem. It combines system analysis with bias checks to raise awareness of possible biases throughout the ecosystem, multi-disciplinary and multi-perspective STEEPED explorations, foresight thinking involving multiple stakeholders, cross-policy analysis and the quality control of evidence. The model aims to ensure a proper balance among the scientific evidence and the other inputs that bear on policy decisions. Lastly, the chapter includes reflections on the issue of trusting science and scientific advisers.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
Bardach, Eugene, and Eric M. Patashnik. 2016. A Practical Guide for Policy Analysis: The Eightfold Path to More Effective Problem Solving. 5th ed. Los Angeles: Sage.
Boucher, Philip. 2018. Assistive Technologies for People with Disabilities. Brussels: STOA—European Parliamentary Research Service.
Compernolle, Theo. 2014. Brain Chains: Discover Your Brain and Unleash Its Full Potential in a Hyperconnected Multitasking World. Brussels: Compublications.
Druckman, James N., and Arthur Lupia. 2017. “Using Frames to Make Scientific Communication More Effective.” In The Oxford Handbook on the Science of Science Communication, edited by Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Dan M. Kahan, and Dietram Scheufele. New York: Oxford University Press.
Elliott, Alex, Angela McLean, Charles Godfray, Colin Muirhead, David Mackay, Dudley Goodhead, Elisabeth Cardis, et al. 2017. “‘Oxford Martin Restatement 5’: A Restatement of the Natural Science Evidence Base Concerning the Health Effects of Low-Level Ionizing Radiation.” Oxford Martin School. https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/view/2583. Accessed January 20, 2019.
European Parliamentary Research Service. 2018. “Circular Economy.” YouTube Video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7AgYY6ui54.
Funk, Cary, and Brian Kennedy. 2019. “Public Confidence in Scientists Has Remained Stable for Decades.” https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/03/22/public-confidence-in-scientists-has-remained-stable-for-decades/. Accessed March 22, 2019.
Funtowicz, Silvio O., and Jerome R. Ravetz. 1993. “Science for the Post-normal Age.” Futures 25 (7): 739–755. https://doi.org/10.1016/0016-3287(93)90022-l.
Government Office for Science. 2011. Code of Practice for Scientific Advisory Committees. London: UK Government Office for Science. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/278498/11-1382-code-of-practice-scientific-advisory-committees.pdf.
Kahan, Dan M. 2017. “On the Sources of Ordinary Science Knowledge and Extraordinary Science Ignorance.” In The Oxford Handbook on the Science of Science Communication, edited by Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Dan M. Kahan, and Dietram Scheufele, 35–49. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kahneman, Daniel. 2012. Thinking, Fast and Slow. London: Penguin.
Makri, Anita 2013. “Science and NGO Practice: Facts and Figures.” Sci Dev Net. https://www.scidev.net/global/capacity-building/feature/science-and-ngo-practice-facts-and-figures.html. Accessed January 21, 2019.
McGann, James G. 2018. 2017 Global Go to Think Tank Index Report: Vol. 13, TTCSP Global Go To Think Tank Index Reports. https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=think_tanks.
Nowotny, Helga, Peter Scott, and Michael Gibbons. 2001. Re-thinking Science: Knowledge and the Public in an Age of Uncertainty. Cambridge: Polity Press.
O’Neill, Onora. 2002. A Question of Trust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Oreskes, Naomi, and Erik M. Conway. 2010. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. New York: Bloomsbury Press.
Oxford Martin School. “Oxford Martin Restatements.” https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/policy/restatements/. Accessed January 21, 2019.
Parr, Ben. 2016. Captivology: The Science of Capturing People’s Attention. New York: HarperOne.
Ravetz, Jerome R. 1971. Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ravetz, Jerome R., Andrea Saltelli, Silvio Funtowicz, Mario Giampietro, Roger Strand, Ângela Guimarães Pereira, Jeroen van der Sluijs, and Alice Benessia. 2006. The No-Nonsense Guide to Science. Oxford: New Internationalist.
Robinson, Warren, Donella H. Meadows, Dennis L. Meadows, Jergen Randers, and William W. Behrens. 1973. The Limits to Growth: A Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind. New York: Universe.
Skinner, Gideon, and Michael Clemence. 2018. “Advertising Execs Rank Below Politicians as Britain’s Least-Trusted Profession.” Ipsos MORI. https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/advertising-execs-rank-below-politicians-britains-least-trusted-profession.
Stephens, Andrea, Andrew Johnson, Angela McLean, Charles Godfray, Charles Tyler, John Sumpter, Paul Jepson, Peter Matthiessen, and Susan Jobling. 2019. “Oxford Martin Restatement 6: A Restatement of the Natural Science Evidence Base on the Effects of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals on Wildlife.” Oxford Martin School. https://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/publications/view/2834.
STOA. 2013. “Food Eco-Foot Print.” Edited by Science and Technology Options Assessment: STOA.
Sunstein, Cass R. 2017. #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
UK Cabinet Office. 2012. “A Strategic Framework for the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage).” Edited by UK Cabinet Office.
Unknown. 1969. “Smoking and Health Proposal—Tobacco Industry Influence in Public Policy.” In Minnesota Documents, edited by Brown & Williamson Records.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Van Woensel, L. (2020). Towards Responsible Scientific Advice: Painting the Complete Picture. In: A Bias Radar for Responsible Policy-Making. St Antony's Series. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32126-0_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-32126-0_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Pivot, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-32125-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-32126-0
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)