This snapshot, taken on 02/09/2009, shows web content selected for preservation by The National Archives. External links, forms and search boxes may not work in archived websites.

The Contribution of scientists and engineers to departments

  • The Government Chief Scientific Adviser is the Head of Scientific and Engineering Professions (HoSEP) across Whitehall. He works with HoSEPS across Whitehall to ensure such things as continuous professional development[1], [2]
  • All scientists share an ethical responsibility for making their contribution to society transparent, communicated clearly and based in trust. Key components are rigour, honesty and integrity; respect for life, the law and the public good; and responsible communication[3], [4].
  • Departments should maintain records of scientists and engineers in support of the needs of departments for expert advice - advised as necessary by the CSA,[5].
  • All departments should take measures to secure adequate scientific capability at a senior level[6].
  • All departments should ensure adequate horizon-scanning procedures are in place[7].

The Importance of Co-ordination on cross-cutting issues[8]

  • A ten-year view of opportunities and challenges from Treasury[9] argued for a focus on:
    • meeting the global terrorist challenge by delivering security at home and abroad;
    • meeting the global economic challenge by improving education and skills across the population;
    • meeting the environmental challenge by acting on climate change; and
    • responding to rising individual aspirations by advancing investment and reform in public services ensuring they are tailored to peoples needs.
    • Many issues require a collegiate approach to generating a robust scientific evidence base[10], [11]. This process is facilitated by the Chief Scientific Advisers Committee (CSAC), the Core Issues Group (CIG) and issue-based sub-groups drawing on relevant expertise from around Whitehall.
    • Identification of issues for collegiate working is mostly governed by considerations that include: emerging science or technologies raising risks and uncertainties[12]; potentially controversial ethical issues; and planning timetables that allow for dialogue process to contribute to policy design[13]. This list is not exhaustive.
    • The evidence base comprises many inputs from other analytical professions[14].

    • PDF this page
    • Print this page
    • RSS