Communication of Science Advice to Government

There are various ways to construct good processes for soliciting and understanding science. Our critique of advisory models finds that a well-supported chief science advisor (CSA) best ensures the provision of deliberative, informal, and emergency advice to government. Alternatively, bias, increasi...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Trends in ecology & evolution (Amsterdam) 2016-01, Vol.31 (1), p.7-11
Main Authors: Hutchings, Jeffrey A., Stenseth, Nils Chr
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Advisory Committees - standards
advisory models
advocacy
bias
Communication
Consumer Advocacy
decision-makers
Government
Lobbying
Policy Making
Science - legislation & jurisprudence
science policy
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:There are various ways to construct good processes for soliciting and understanding science. Our critique of advisory models finds that a well-supported chief science advisor (CSA) best ensures the provision of deliberative, informal, and emergency advice to government. Alternatively, bias, increasingly manifest as science-based advocacy, can hinder communication, diminish credibility, and distort scientific evidence. We critique advisory models for the communication of science to government. Above all, we favour a well-supported, well-connected Office of Chief Science Advisor. The ideal model provides deliberative, informal, and emergency advice, absent of vested interests. Advocacy, particularly harmful when unacknowledged, hinders science communication and advice.
ISSN:0169-5347
1872-8383
DOI:10.1016/j.tree.2015.10.008