This snapshot taken on 12/11/2008, shows web content selected for preservation by The National Archives. External links, forms and search boxes may not work in archived websites.
URN No: 00/1026
Published: July 2000
This updated version of the Guidelines, "Guidelines 2000" replaces the first edition issued in March 1997. Guidelines 2000 takes account of a review of experience gained by departments in operating the March 1997 Guidelines, and also the results of a public consultation which took place over December 1999 to June 2000.
Guidelines 2000 sets out key principles applying to the development and presentation of scientific advice for policy making. It is primarily aimed at individual departments, but the principles have application in wider fields. The key messages are that departments should:
The response to the consultation confirmed that the basic principles as set out in the 1997 document should remain unchanged. However, we have taken the opportunity when issuing this second edition to incorporate a number of suggestions for improvement which were made during the course of the review.
The principles behind Guidelines 2000 are consistent with those underlying the Government's drive for evidence-based policy, in line with the Government's modernisation programme. The Guidelines are intended to complement more extensive guidance already available on risk assessment and policy evaluation. A list of references to related guidance and publications is given in the Annex.
Office of Science & Technology
July 2000
1. The Guidelines set out some key principles applying to the use and presentation of scientific advice in policy making. They should be read in conjunction with guidance on related aspects of policy making, such as the Modernising Government programme; and the HSE publications on risk assessment, risk management and risk communication, and other publications as set out in the Annex. They will need to be followed particularly carefully where:
2. The Guidelines apply to advice and research in science, engineering and technology, although aspects may usefully be applied to a broader range of issues involving other disciplines. They cover the processes of:
3. These Guidelines are intended primarily for the use of UK government departments (1), although they will be relevant to any body which uses scientific advice in informing policy and to all scientific disciplines falling within the definition of Science, Engineering and Technology (SET) used by the Office for National Statistics for its Government R&D Survey (2).
4. The Guidelines apply to all areas in which scientific advice is required and whatever the sources of scientific advice to Government: whether in-house or from sole external experts; standing or ad-hoc advisory committees; contract research from academia, industry or commerce; independent research or elsewhere. However, it is particularly important that they are followed carefully where the issues are sensitive, for example where there is significant scientific uncertainty, a range of scientific opinion, or implications for public policy. Departments should use their judgement to apply the Guidelines in a manner which is proportionate to the nature and scale of the issues involved.
5. Individual departments should ensure that their procedures can anticipate as early as possible those issues for which scientific advice will be needed, particularly those which are potentially sensitive. They should also ensure that research is commissioned as early as possible into what are known or likely to be key areas of uncertainty.
6. No single approach to the identification of issues is likely to be adequate. Instead, information should be drawn from a variety of sources and monitored by those responsible in the department concerned, as an 'intelligent customer' for science, engineering and technology.
7. Sources may include:
a) departments' own programmes of research. It is important that departments maintain adequate support for broadly-based longer term research and undertake horizon-scanning, including the use of Foresight-type arrangements, to help them identify and/or respond to new and unexpected findings;
b) research from non-departmental sources, including international bodies (e.g. the European Commission);
c) departments' existing expert advisory systems, where members of committees may be specifically asked to draw attention to new areas in the scientific literature. Membership should be kept under review to ensure an appropriate range of scientific opinion is represented;
d) discussions with those in the Research Councils, industry, academia and elsewhere, including through the network of Foresight panels, and also through consultation with interested stakeholders and stakeholder groups, including groups representing the interests of consumers and members of the public. These discussions are likely to be most fruitful when held against the basis of long-standing relationships developed with departments;
e) issues brought to the attention of Government by the interests directly concerned (e.g. individuals, companies, scientists or lobby groups) or by reports in the media.
8. Nonetheless, some issues will inevitably arise with little or no prior warning. Departments should ensure that they have the capacity to recognise the implications and to react quickly and efficiently to such situations. Departments should also review systematically their medium to longer-term strategies for science and technology spending, as well as their immediate priorities, to see whether funding needs to be directed to programmes of further research to illuminate outstanding areas of uncertainty identified.
9. Departments should ensure they have mechanisms in place for early identification of issues which affect more than one department or agency or have an international dimension, and ensure they have adequate procedures for early provision and exchange of information. Departments should involve the Office of Science and Technology in all substantive or sensitive issues which cross departmental boundaries.
10. 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. For example, the broad questions to be asked will determine the scientific disciplines required, and hence the types of experts needed.
11. All relevant scientific disciplines needed to address the problem should be assembled. Departments should at a minimum consult the experts they are proposing to use, in order to ensure the experts themselves feel they can cover all the scientific competencies required. In certain cases departments may need to consult more widely to satisfy themselves that they have assembled all the right disciplines.
12. Departments should draw on a sufficiently wide range of the best expert sources, both within and outside Government. These might include not only eminent individuals, learned societies, advisory committees, or consultants, but also professional bodies, public sector research establishments, lay members of advisory groups, consumer groups and other stakeholder bodies. As all experts will come to issues with views shaped to some extent by their own interests and experience, departments should also consider how to avoid unconscious bias, by ensuring that there is a good balance in terms of the type of institutions and organisations from which the experts are sought. Experts from other disciplines, not necessarily scientific, should also be invited to contribute, to ensure that the evidence is subjected to a sufficiently questioning review from a wide-ranging set of viewpoints.
13. Consideration should be given where appropriate to inviting experts from outside the UK, for example those from European or international advisory mechanisms, particularly in cases where other countries have experience of, or are likely to be affected by, the issue under consideration.
14. Departments should ask prospective experts to follow the seven principles of public life 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 interests should, as a minimum, be made available to anyone who is proposing to act in reliance upon the advice. Departments will also need to consider whether it is appropriate to make the declarations more widely available.
16. Departments should consider how best to frame the particular questions which the experts will be asked to answer. At a minimum the proposed questions should be discussed with the experts themselves, in order to ensure the questions to be asked are capable of a scientific answer.
17. Where issues are sensitive, departments should take utmost care that the questions are framed to cover the concerns of all relevant stakeholder groups, including consumers and the general public. In some particular cases it may be necessary to undertake prior public consultation before the terms of the questions are finally settled.
18. It should be made clear to the experts which of the various possible roles they are being asked to perform. These can include: collection and analysis of new scientific data; review of existing data; interpretation of research from different sources; application of expert judgement where data is lacking or inconclusive; identification of policy options open to departments; and providing expert scientific advice upon policy options proposed by departments. Different sorts of expertise may be required for different roles.
19. Departments should not require experts to come to firm conclusions which cannot be justified by the state of scientific knowledge. Where the science or the technology are uncertain, departments should ask experts to indicate in their advice which areas are uncertain, and to what degree, whether they are critical to the analysis, and what new information might cause them to revisit their advice.
20. Scientific advice is only one element among the considerations which may need to be taken into account by decision makers, which might also include social, political, economic, moral or ethical concerns. Departments will need to judge how and at what stage the scientific and other concerns are to be brought together in the decision making process. Where it is intended that those offering the advice should take such concerns into account, departments should make it clear at the outset that this is the case.
21. When asking experts to identify policy options or to comment on policy options prepared by others, departments should respect the line between the responsibility of experts to provide advice, and the responsibility of departments for any subsequent policy decisions based on that advice.
22. Departments should ensure their procedures for obtaining advice are open and transparent. The evidence upon which the advice is based should be published. The analysis and judgement which went into it, and any important omissions in the data, should be clearly documented and identified as such. Any claims for material to be protected, e.g. on grounds of the commercial confidentiality of the information concerned should be rigorously tested.
23. Departments should ensure that data relating to the issue are made available as early as possible to the scientific community, and more widely to enable a wide range of research groups to tackle the issue and to provide a check on the advice going to government. This will be particularly important, for example, where the advice will rely on research which has not been peer reviewed, or which has not been previously published.
24. In practice, deliberations on scientific advice frequently involve a risk assessment of one type or another, and scientific advice is often a contribution to a risk assessment. The Government has confirmed (3) that it will assess, manage and communicate risk as part of the policy-making process, and is committed to the better promotion, co-ordination and implementation of risk best practice. The Interdepartmental Liaison Group on Risk Assessment (ILGRA), chaired by HSE, develops policy on, and promotes the practical application of risk assessment and risk management. Separate guidance published by HSE is listed in the Annex.
25. Where the policy issue falls within European Community competence, or is likely to affect intra-Community trade, particular attention should be paid to encouraging a sound scientific basis for Community decision-making. This may involve contributing to Community-level scientific committees, briefing the Commission on developing scientific opinion, and exchange visits by scientific experts from other Member States.
26. Departments are individually responsible for the handling of advice commissioned by them, including its public presentation. In line with the Government's Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, there should be a presumption at every stage towards openness in explaining the interpretation of scientific advice, which may mean going further than the minimum obligations. Departments should aim to publish widely the scientific advice and all the relevant papers, so those outside can satisfy themselves about the process by which the advice was formulated, and that the conclusions are correctly drawn.
27. It is important that sufficient early thought is given to presenting the issues, uncertainties and policy options to the public so that departments are perceived as open, well prepared and consistent with one another and with the scientific advice. The difficulties associated with presenting uncertain or conflicting conclusions should not be underestimated.
28. In public presentation, departments should whenever possible consider giving scientists a leading role in explaining their advice on the science, with Ministers or policy officials describing how the Government's policies have been framed in the light of the advice received. Further advice is available in the Government's Code of Practice on Access to Government Information: Guidance on Interpretation.
29. Early communication with key interest groups may be appropriate. Consideration should also be given to providing early warning of significant policy announcements to other governments and international organisations, where there are likely to be implications for other countries. Where possible, scientists from such countries or organisations should be involved in the process of consultation and advice.
30. Where it has not been practicable to follow the advice in this note, this should be made clear, together with an explanation of the reasons, when submitting relevant issues to Ministers.
31. The Government's Ministerial Science Group, MSG, supported by the committee of chief scientific advisers, CSAC, will keep under review departmental S&T strategies, and departments' procedures for early anticipation and identification of issues for which scientific research or advice will be needed. OST will keep emerging transdepartmental issues under review.
32. Departments should assess systematically how well these Guidelines have been assimilated into their departmental practice; how successful they have been in raising awareness of the principles contained herein; and the adequacy of their arrangements for monitoring how well policy makers apply them. OST will monitor implementation of the principles across departments, and report annually to the Ministerial Science Group. These reports will be published.
1. In this document references to 'departments' should be taken to include departments and their agencies. BACK
2. Disciplines covered include medicine, dentistry and all allied subjects; engineering and technology; agriculture, fisheries, forestry and vetinary science; biological, environmental, mathematical and physical sciences; psychology, geography, economics and social studies; and humanities. BACK
3. White Paper Modernising Government BACK
