In the UK鈥檚 snap election campaign, will voters be fed up of experts? Or will the claims and counterclaims of the EU referendum and previous polls make the general public search for the balance of evidence?
The trouble with evidence is that you can find any old scrap of it to support a given point of view. Anyone who has scrolled through their Facebook feed will know that two people of different political persuasions can find evidence to support their world view.
But government has a duty to consider the weight of evidence to help form effective policies for the public good. Many politicians use evidence to inform policies, yet too often are guilty of citing only that which supports policy ambitions, rather than honestly divulging the balance of expert scientific opinion.
Advertisement
Considering the weight of evidence helps make policies smarter, more effective and cheaper. The UK faces big policy change in the coming years, with time and resources stretched, so it is vital that the mechanisms for politicians to access and use evidence are fit for purpose and performing well.
The (CaSE), which I direct, has a report out this week, , to encourage this. It points out that despite UK science advice structures being well regarded around the world, they aren鈥檛 perfect. They could benefit from being more strategically joined-up across all government departments, both in terms of sharing good practice and increasingly working from a shared evidence base.
Embedded expertise
The report also reveals the need for people equipped with the right skills to bring evidence to bear on decisions at every level, from policy development and programme evaluation, to science advice at the highest tiers of government.
There are many ways to do this, but the network of departmental chief scientific advisers led by the government chief scientific adviser (GCSA) form a strong core. . Whoever is appointed should be savvy and bold. They will need to be influential in government, embodying and enabling science advice, and a powerful voice for the science, technology, engineering and mathematics community.
Likewise at the Department for International Trade, which I am delighted to say is now seeking a chief scientific adviser after earlier in time for Brexit talks. With this post filled, imagine the expertise the department will be able to harness to support trade negotiations. Consider agriculture: from hormone levels in meat to mathematical modelling of economic impact. More importantly, they will be trusted to flag up unnoticed issues or unintended consequences. To do this, they need to operate at the heart of the department, at board level.
The Department for Exiting the EU could similarly benefit from a chief scientific adviser. It has said it will access advice via the GCSA, but that route is arguably weakened while a replacement is sought for this post. CaSE calls on the department to urgently establish a robust mechanism for accessing scientific advice. In my view, a chief scientific adviser with responsibility to the department and credibility in it will secure the best outcome for the negotiations to leave the EU.
We can be proud of the values and culture of the UK and its government. These have led to the nation having one of the most highly regarded systems for scientific advice in the world. We must challenge politicians to use that system to weigh, scrutinise and discuss the balance of evidence in everyone鈥檚 interests.
Read more: Post Brexit, experts need to reassert their value to society; Inside knowledge: The biggest questions about facts, truth, lies and belief
