Health and Safety
Executive / Commission
Science & research
The role of scientific advice in contributing to the formation both of UK and international policy and regulatory decisions, particularly on sensitive issues involving people’s health and safety and the environment, has become increasingly important in recent years. At the same time, public concern about the Government’s use of science in developing its policies has grown. To address this concern and to ensure that departments adopted a consistent approach, the Chief Scientific Adviser published Guidelines on the Use of Scientific Analysis in Policy Making, ‘Guidelines 2005’. This updated version of the Guidelines replaces the 2nd edition issued in July 2000. The guidelines are reproduced in full at Annex B to this Statement. The guidelines address how evidence should be sought and applied to enhance the ability of government and decision makers to make better-informed decisions. The key messages are that departments should:
This Statement will need to be followed particularly carefully when:
The approach outlined applies to all areas in which scientific advice is required when formulating long-term policy objectives or reacting to emerging evidence and whatever the sources of scientific advice to HSE: whether in-house or from external experts, Advisory Committees, ad hoc committees, commissioned research, independent research or elsewhere. ‘Guidelines 2005’ apply to advice and research in science, engineering and technology (SET), which is defined broadly (Annex B). The term ‘scientific advice’ includes:
1. Think ahead and identify early issues on which advice is needed
2. Get a wide range of advice from the best sources, particularly where there is scientific uncertainty
3. Publish scientific evidence and all relevant papers
4. Implementation and review
| General enquiries, advice on the interpretation of GL2005 and Subject Advisory Committees | ||
|---|---|---|
| Dr V Warbrick | 0151 951 3582 | vicky.warbrick@hse.gsi.gov.uk |
| R J Simpson | 0151 951 3073 | bob.simpson@hse.gsi.gov.uk |
| Research and Technical Support | ||
| D Stenhouse | 0151 951 3523 | david.stenhouse@hse.gsi.gov.uk |
| Details of and central point of contact for the use of HSE’s in-house science and engineering capability, Corporate Topic Groups, Horizon Scanning and Knowledge Management. | ||
| Dr A Phillips | 0151 951 4753 | andy.phillips@hse.gsi.gov.uk |
| Initial point of contact for scientific advice | ||
|---|---|---|
| Anne Wright | 0114 289 2317 | anne.wright@hsl.gov.uk |
The Context
1. The environment in which Ministers must make decisions is continually changing. In recent years we have seen the level of public interest in evidence-based issues increase. These guidelines were first published in 1997 and updated in 2000 to take on board the anticipated findings of the Phillips Report into the BSE Crisis. During these past eight years, I believe the level of public confidence in government’s ability to make sound decisions in this area is now beginning to recover. It is essential that we continue to build on the lessons learned from this and embed them across all areas of government policy
2. It is also essential that an effective advisory process exists which allows decision makers access to a high quality and wide ranging evidence base. This will enable them to make informed decisions, to deal effectively with crises and to ensure that all opportunities are explored to their full potential. In short, we must ensure that:
3. The principles laid out within these guidelines are consistent with the current better policy making guidelines to which policy makers adhere. They aim to further highlight the importance of the role of evidence in policy making, and to increase the awareness of policy makers on how best to seek good quality evidence from the most credible sources at the most appropriate time. They also aim to support the Professional Skills in Government (PSG) agenda by facilitating the understanding of the analytical and policy making environments for all those involved in the process.
4. The guidelines address how evidence should be sought and applied to enhance the ability of government decision makers to make better informed decisions. The key messages are that departments, and the individual policy makers within them, should:
5. This updated version of the guidelines replaces the second edition issued in July 2000. It builds on input from, and policy making experience gained, inside government and views from a wide range of stakeholders who responded to the public consultation held between June and August 2005.
6. The guidelines cover all disciplines from which policy makers may need to seek advice when formulating long-term policy objectives (including international agreements) or when reacting to another piece of established or emerging evidence.
7. These include natural and physical sciences, social sciences, economics and statistics and the arts and humanities[1]. The balance of disciplines required will obviously depend on the issue in question, but the potential for advice to be strengthened by harnessing evidence from all disciplines should not be discounted, particularly in areas of public concern. This is covered in more depth later.
8. The balance of research methods used to generate the data will also depend upon the issue in question. Research methods include experimental and theoretical/computational, survey and administrative, qualitative, economic evaluation, philosophical and wider social research. [2]
9. Individual departments should ensure that adequate horizon scanning procedures are in place, sourcing data across all evidential areas, to provide early indications of trends, issues, or other emerging phenomena that may create significant impacts that departments need to take account of [3]. Departments should ensure that their horizon scanning evidence is appropriately considered and, where necessary, acted upon. Departments should be able to draw on the information included in their Science and Innovation Strategies or their wider Evidence and Innovation Strategies.
10. Many issues are likely to require evidence that cuts across departments and will therefore require close communication and collaboration between departments. Departments should ensure they have the mechanisms in place for early identification of issues which affect more than one department or agency or have an international dimension. Adequate procedures should also be in place for early provision and exchange of information.
11. Once issues have been identified on which scientific advice is needed, departments should ensure their procedures for obtaining advice are consistent with the steps outlined below. The various stages in the process are not concurrent, and may have to be applied iteratively.
12. Departments should draw on a sufficiently wide range of the best expert sources, both within and outside government, ensuring that existing evidence is drawn upon. There is an extensive list of external sources that departments can engage. These include academics, eminent individuals, learned societies, advisory committees, consultants, professional bodies, public sector research establishments (including the Research Councils), lay members of advisory groups, consumer groups and other stakeholder bodies. Where appropriate, consideration should also be given to inviting experts from outside the UK, for example those from European or international advisory mechanisms, particularly in cases where the other countries have experience of, or are likely to be affected by, the issue under consideration.
13. Departments should ensure that their selection of advisers matches the nature of the issue and the breadth of judgment required and is sufficiently balanced to reflect the diversity of opinion amongst experts. When deciding which external sources to seek advice from, departments should encourage those responsible for individual issues to cast their net wider than their traditional contacts and continually establish new networks in order to capture the full diversity of good evidence-based advice. The potential networks of organisations such as learned societies should not be underestimated. Many professional bodies have access to a wide range of specialists whose experience could usefully be brought to bear on relevant issues.
14. Departments should ask prospective experts to follow the seven principles of public life [4] as set out by the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which include the obligation to declare any private interests relating to their public duties. Departments should judge whether these interests could undermine the credibility or independence of the advice.
15. Where departments conclude that the potential conflicts of interest are not likely to undermine the credibility or independence of the advice, the relevant declarations of interest should, as a minimum, be made available to anyone who might rely on that advice. Departments will also need to consider whether it is appropriate to make the declarations more widely available.
16. While advice from external and international sources should be sought regularly, departments should absolutely ensure that such advice is sought when:
17. Where the issue falls within European Community competence, or is likely to affect intra-community trade, particular attention should be paid to encouraging an evidence-based approach for Community decision making. This may involve contributing to Community level scientific committees, briefing the Commission on developing expert opinion, and exchange visits by scientific experts from other Member States.
18. Departments should consider how best to frame the particular questions which the experts will be asked to address. Making the question too narrow may prejudice the result. Where issues may be sensitive, departments must ensure that questions are framed to cover the concerns of all relevant stakeholder groups, including consumers and the general public. On these occasions, public dialogue should begin as early as possible. Ideally, the public should be involved in framing the questions that experts and policy makers need to address in order to make Ministers aware of the most important issues before taking a decision. The Council for Science and Technology’s recent report on public dialogue [5] listed a helpful set of criteria for consideration in selecting priorities for public dialogue. Although specifically aimed at science and technology, the criteria are relevant for all policy areas:
Core criteria
Additional criteria
19. The way in which public dialogue will affect policy and decision making will be specific to each department involved in the dialogue process and each issue under consideration. It is therefore essential that departments involved in dialogue look at their own consultative arrangements and working practices to ensure public engagement is effective. For example, links into departmental horizon scanning processes are essential to ensure early identification of and preparation for issues that may be priorities for public dialogue. [6]
20. When assessing the levels of risk or establishing risk management strategies in relation to a specific policy, the use of evidence is essential. Analysts and policy makers must ensure that they include evidence of any differing perspectives of risk (including perspectives from the public) as well as scientific risk assessments as part of any decision making process [7]. Early public engagement is vital to ensure this happens.
21. Evidence in public policy making contains varying levels of uncertainty that must be assessed, communicated and managed. Departments should not press experts to come to firm conclusions that cannot be justified by the evidence available. Departments should ensure that levels of uncertainty are explicitly identified and communicated directly in plain language to decision makers. They should also be made aware of the degree to which they are critical to the analysis, and what new and emerging information might cause them to revisit their advice. There will inevitably be occasions where advice is required within a few days, or even within hours. Decision makers should therefore also be made aware of the period of notice which policy makers and specialists have had to prepare advice, and that appropriate guidance and confidence caveats are given where quality of evidence, analysis and advice is deemed to have been time limited.
22. When asking experts to identify or comment on potential policy options, it is essential that departments and decision makers distinguish between the responsibility of experts to provide advice, and the responsibility of decision makers for actions taken as a result of that advice. Experts should not be expected to take into account potential political reaction to their findings before presenting them.
23. The effective and efficient handling of advice is essential, particularly in a crisis. Each responsible department should have clear guidelines on how scientific advice is provided in a crisis. These should include clear designation of responsibility, the processes to be employed and the sources of advice. Those responsible for departmental and ministerial communication with the public should ensure that the evidence on which any decisions were based are included as part of any press release or communication strategy. Where decisions taken were not based on the evidence, this should also be explained.
24. In public presentations, departments should wherever possible consider giving experts (internal or external) a leading role in explaining their advice on a particular issue, with Ministers or policy officials describing how the government’s policies have been framed in the light of advice received. Early communication with key interest groups should also be considered. Consideration should also be given to providing early warning of significant policy announcements to other government departments and international organisations, where there are likely to be implications for other countries. Where possible, experts from such countries or organisations should be involved in the process of consultation and advice [8].
25. In line with the Freedom of Information Act, there should be a presumption at every stage towards openness and transparency in the publication of expert advice [9] Departments should also ensure their procedures for obtaining advice are open and transparent. It is good practice to publish the underpinning evidence for a new policy decision, particularly as part of an accompanying press release. Where issues fall under the remit of the Environmental Information Regulations, [10] publication will usually be obligatory rather than just good practice. When publishing the evidence the analysis and judgment that went into it, and any important omissions in the data, should be clearly documented and identified as such. This should be done in a way that is meaningful to the non-expert.
26. Departments should ensure that data relating to an issue is made available as early as possible to the scientific community, and more widely, to enable a wide range of research groups to provide a check on advice going to government.
27. Quality assurance provides confidence in the evidence gathering process whilst
peer review provides expert evaluation of the evidence itself. Both are important tools in ensuring advice is as up to date and robust as possible. Methods of peer review and the applicability of quality assurance processes are likely to differ according to the discipline and research method they relate to. For example, a more formal review process is likely to be suitable for scientific and technical issues. However, departments should ensure that the appropriate peer review and quality assurance processes are carried out unless there are exceptional circumstances. Such circumstances might include evidence and analysis obtained during an on-going crisis.
28. In the case of the natural and physical sciences in particular, departments should ensure where they intend to use evidence which has not previously been peer reviewed appropriate steps are taken to ensure that it is. It may be possible to ask scientific advisory committees to comment on the findings. As stated previously, academics, learned societies and other expert contacts will also be useful here.
29. There will be occasions when new findings emerge suddenly, and sometimes with considerable publicity. It is often the case that research relating to controversial issues is leaked or sent directly to the press without being peer reviewed. In some circumstances, the results of this kind of exposure may well generate public concern. In these circumstances, it is important that the views of experts are sought without delay (see previous sections on who to contact).
30. When responding to public concerns over emerging findings, it is important that departments state clearly the level of peer review and/or quality assurance which has or has not already been carried out, whether they intend to subject the work to any further peer review processes and when this is likely to be available.
31. The level of peer review and quality assurance should be made clear by departments in any response they make to the emerging findings. In doing so it is important to explain the levels of uncertainty and corroboration of the original evidence. In circumstances where new research appears to challenge current thinking, but where the balance of evidence remains with that current thinking, it is also important for this to be stated clearly.
32. As the guidelines are largely principle based, we would encourage departments to ensure they are woven into departmental guidance on better policy making. Chief Scientific Advisers will work in partnership with policy makers to ensure the guideline’s principles are fully embedded into departmental policy procedures and to ensure appropriate scientific input into policy decisions. Although how this is done will differ from department to department in order to work with the grain of existing evaluation activity, Chief Scientific Adviser’s findings will inform part of the periodic progress reports on the implementation of the Science and Innovation Framework.
Our aim at HSE is to base regulatory decisions on the best quality specialist advice, recognising the need to adopt a proportionate approach. The HSE Guidelines 2005 Statement is aimed at scientific advice and policy making but similar principles apply to the use of all specialist advice in taking regulatory decisions. All specialist advisers and those they advise are expected to work together to make the best regulatory decisions. Most issues will be routine and HSE’s own specialist staff will be able to provide the necessary advice. However, we expect those seeking and giving specialist advice to give particular consideration to issues where:
We expect decision makers who seek specialist advice from others:
We expect those providing specialist advice:
1. The Chief Scientific Adviser’s Guidelines (the Guidelines) require that Departments have in place procedures for obtaining scientific advice in a crisis. This living document sets out HSE’s procedures.
2. HSE notes that the Guidelines have no definition of a ‘crisis’ and uses the definition of an ‘emergency’ in the Civil Contingencies Act (CC Act) s1, which is:
3. As a body that can be called on to deal with major incidents in areas where HSE is responsible under the Health and Safety at Work Act (HSW), HSE has arrangements in place to respond to these incidents. These are HSE’s Major Incidents Response Arrangements (MIRA) and cover incidents on Offshore Installations and Serious Industrial Accidents. HSE also has arrangements to respond to a major civil contingencies event and to respond to a ‘non-nuclear event’ at a civil nuclear site. In both cases the procedures ensure that advice is provided to Gold and Silver command as appropriate. In the event of a nuclear event at a civil nuclear site the lead department is either Dti or the Scottish Executive. They are responsible for the appointment of the Government Technical Adviser (GTA). The Chief Inspector of Nuclear Installations, or one of the Deputies, is responsible for ensuring that there is appropriate technical support to the GTA.
4. HSE (including its Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL)) is a large organisation with approximately 1100 scientists and engineers, including 350 at HSL. Taken together they have an extensive expertise and knowledge and of its application in the identification, assessment and management of risk, particularly in terms of dynamic risk assessment where the background is changing. They are fully in touch with, and aware of, scientific and technical developments in their fields and the implications for our work and, taken together, are able to provide technical support/risk assessment in any of the disciplines needed for HSE to fulfil its regulatory responsibilities. The work of HSE is also supported by a number of Advisory Committees (eg on Dangerous Substances, Dangerous Pathogens, the Offshore Industry and whose membership can be drawn from the relevent industries but also have independent members from academia etc).
5. The areas on which HSE leads in the provision of scientific advice in a crisis are Emergencies on Offshore Installations, Transport Accidents on Land (with DfT) and Serious Industrial Accidents - where the main focus relates to HSE’s operations. However, HSE is able to provide scientific advice in a crisis, irrespective of:
HSE works with other departments and agencies to share knowledge and expertise and actively feeds into workstreams emanating from the Government’s contingency work. Should a crisis occur where HSE considers that it has expertise to offer it would proactively contact the lead organisation.
7. Should HSE need to respond to an emergency (including a ‘non-nuclear’ event at a civil nuclear site) a response team would be established using a procedure identical to that used to recruit a response team under MIRA. The Chief Scientist would ensure that this response team includes scientists and/or engineers from relevent HSE and HSL sections, supplemented by external support, as appropriate, from Call-off contracts and Registers of Professionals. The response team would provide advice to Gold and Silver command as appropriate. If the emergency was a ‘nuclear’ event at a civil nuclear site, then HSE will input fully into the arrangements established by Dti for such events. The Chief Scientist would ensure that secretariat support was adequate for the scientists involved in the team.
8. HSE would follow the principles in the Chief Scientific Adviser’s Guidelines on Scientific Analysis in Policy Making with respect to both the peer review of the scientific advice received and in ensuring that any evidence on which decisions are made are published. With respect to the latter, HSE’s Chief Press Officer produces and maintains written detailed instructions. These ensure that (i) there is effective communication between the Press Office, the HSE staff responding to the incident and the HSE co-ordination team, (ii) the GNN is alerted that an incident has occurred and (iii) that a Press Officer attends the incident site if requested.
[1] Further disciplines covered include medicine, dentistry and all allied subjects; engineering and technology; agriculture, fisheries, forestry and veterinary science; biological, environmental, mathematical sciences; psychology; and geography.
[2] Please see http://www.policyhub.gov.uk/ for more details.
[3] There are many ways of carrying out horizon scanning. The Office of Science and Technology Horizon Scanning Centre can provide advice, examples and, in some cases, further support. Please see http://www.foresight.gov.uk/horizonscanning for further details.
[4] Please see http://www.public-standards.gov.uk/about_us/seven_principles.htm for further details.
[5] ‘Policy through dialogue: informing policies based on science and technology’ by the Council for Science and Technology can be found at http://www2.cst.gov.uk/cst/reports/#8
[6] Public engagement in SET guidelines is at annex b of Government response to nanotechnology report. This can be found at http://www.ost.gov.uk/policy/issues/nanotech_final.pdf
[7] Please see HM Treasury’s ‘Managing risks to the public: appraisal guidance’ http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/8AB/54/Managing_risks_to_the_public.pdf for further details on risk management. Please also see http://www.hse.gov.uk/aboutus/meetings/committees/ilgra/
[8] Please see http://www.policyhub.gov.uk/ for further details.
[9] This is covered in Section 35/6 of the Act. Full guidance on the Act can be found at:
http://www.dca.gov.uk/foi/guidance/index.htm
[10] The Environmental Information Regulations establish an access regime, which allows people to request environmental information from public authorities and those bodies carrying out a public function. Please see http://www.informationcommissioner.gov.uk/eventual.aspx?id=36 for further details.