Science Advice in the UK

This report examines the science advisory system in the UK, how it has changed and how it may develop further in the future. It looks at structure and functions within the UK Government (including the Government Chief Scientific Advisor, the Government Office for Science, government departments, scientific advisory committees - including SAGE - and the Science and Engineering Profession). It also describes science advice in the UK Parliament. The report looks at the role of public research funders, particularly UK Research and Innovation and its research councils, and it discusses how universities are responding to incentives to improve the supply of evidence and expertise. There are brief sections discussing the role of other actors (such as national academies, charities and industry) and discussion of some cross-cutting themes.

GEOTHERMAL ENERGY RESOURCE POTENTIAL IN NIGERIA FROM AEROMAGNETIC REVIEWS: ANOTHER PANACEA FOR ENERGY CRISES AND ENVIRONMENTAL GLOBAL WARMING

An effort has been made in this paper to advocate a panacea to the prevailing energy crisis in Nigeria by reviewing the country’s geothermal energy resource potential from regional aeromagnetic calculations. There is widespread occurrence of warm/hot springs in Nigeria, which gives credence to the availability and abundance of geothermal reserves. Results of aeromagnetic investigations also confirm that areas with anomalous high heat flow exist in Nigeria, showing high prospects of employing geothermal energy for direct and indirect energy applications. It is, therefore, imperative for Nigeria to take a quantum leap in holistic renewable energy research and development through appropriate government science advice, policy and environmental management.

Should policy makers trust composite indices? A commentary on the pitfalls of inappropriate indices for policy formation

Background This paper critically discusses the use and merits of global indices, in particular, the Global Health Security Index (GHSI; Cameron et al. https://www.ghsindex.org/#l-section--map) in times of an imminent crisis, such as the current pandemic. This index ranked 195 countries according to their expected preparedness in the case of a pandemic or other biological threat. The coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic provides the background to compare each country's predicted performance from the GHSI with the actual performance. In general, there is an inverted relation between predicted versus actual performance, i.e. the predicted top performers are among those that are the worst hit. Obviously, this reflects poorly on the potential policy uses of this index in imminent crisis management. Methods The paper analyses the GHSI and identifies why it may have struggled to predict actual pandemic preparedness as evidenced by the Covid-19 pandemic. The paper also uses two different data sets, one from the Worldmeter on the spread of the Covid-19 pandemics, and the other from the International Network for Government Science Advice (INGSA) Evidence-to-Policy Tracker, to draw comparisons between the actual introduction of pandemic response policies and the corresponding death rate in 29 selected countries. Results This paper analyses the reasons for the poor match between prediction and reality in the index, and mentions six general observations applying to global indices in this respect. These observations are based on methodological and conceptual analyses. The level of abstraction in these global indices builds uncertainties upon uncertainties and hides implicit value assumptions, which potentially removes them from the policy needs on the ground. Conclusions From the analysis, the question is raised if the policy community might have better tools for decision-making in a pandemic. On the basis of data from the INGSA Evidence-to-Policy Tracker, and with backing in studies from social psychology and philosophy of science, some simple heuristics are suggested, which may be more useful than a global index.

The role of science advice in recovery potential assessments in freshwater fish listing decisions under the Canadian Species at Risk Act

Fishes assessed as Threatened or Endangered by the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada are disproportionately less likely to be listed under the federal Species at Risk Act (SARA) compared to other taxa. We examined the extent to which the amount and type of science advice in a Recovery Potential Assessment (RPA) contributes to SARA-listing decisions for 34 wildlife species of freshwater fishes in Canada. We used a generalized linear mixed model to describe SARA listing status as a function of RPA completeness. Principal coordinates analyses were conducted to assess similarity in answers to RPA questions among listed and nonlisted species. The amount and type of science advice within an RPA were weakly related to SARA status. RPA completeness accounted for only 7.4% of model variation when family was included as a random effect, likely because nine species not listed under SARA (64%) belong to the sturgeon family. Our results suggest that, while potentially useful for informing recovery strategies, RPAs do not appear to be driving listing status for freshwater fishes in Canada. Factors beyond scientific advice likely contribute to nonlisted species and delays in listing decisions.

Of numbers, narratives and challenges: Data as evidence in 21st century policy-making

This article1 offers reflections on the use of data as evidence in 21st century policy-making. It discusses the concept of evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM) as well as the governance and knowledge effects of data as evidence. With this focus, it interlinks the analysis of statistics and politics. The paper first introduces the concept of EIPM and the impact of evidence use. Here it focusses on science and knowledge as resources in policy-making, on the institutionalisation of science advice and on the translation of information and knowledge into evidence. The second part of the article reflects on data as evidence. This part concentrates on abstract and concrete functions of data as governance tools in policy-making, on data as a robust form of evidence and on the effects of data on knowledge and governance. The third part highlights challenges for data as evidence in policy-making, among them, politicisation, transparency, and diversity as well as objectivity and contestation. Finally, the last part draws conclusions on the production and use of data as evidence in EIPM. Throughout the second part of the reflections, reference is made to Walter Radermacher’s 2019 matrix of actors and activities related to data, facts, and policy published in this journal.