Future directions for scientific advice in Europe

Across Europe, scientific evidence and advice is in great demand, to inform policies and decision making on issues such as climate change, new technologies and environmental regulation. But the diversity of political cultures and attitudes to expertise in different European countries can make the task of designing EU-wide advisory institutions and processes both sensitive and complex. In January 2015, President Juncker asked Commissioner Moedas to report on options for improving scientific advice within the European Commission. At a time when these issues are higher than usual on the political agenda, it is important that the case for scientific advice and evidence-informed policy is articulated and analysed afresh. To support these efforts, this collection brings together agenda-setting essays by policymakers, practitioners, scientists and scholars from across Europe. Authors include Anne Glover, Ulrike Felt, Robert Madelin, Andy Stirling, Vladimír Šucha and Jos van der Meer. Their contributions outline various challenges but also constructive ways forward for scientific advice in Europe

Identifying the science and technology dimensions of emerging public policy issues through horizon scanning

Public policy requires public support, which in turn implies a need to enable the public not just to understand policy but also to be engaged in its development. Where complex science and technology issues are involved in policy making, this takes time, so it is important to identify emerging issues of this type and prepare engagement plans. In our horizon scanning exercise, we used a modified Delphi technique [1]. A wide group of people with interests in the science and policy interface (drawn from policy makers, policy adviser, practitioners, the private sector and academics) elicited a long list of emergent policy issues in which science and technology would feature strongly and which would also necessitate public engagement as policies are developed. This was then refined to a short list of top priorities for policy makers. Thirty issues were identified within broad areas of business and technology; energy and environment; government, politics and education; health, healthcare, population and aging; information, communication, infrastructure and transport; and public safety and national security.Public policy requires public support, which in turn implies a need to enable the public not just to understand policy but also to be engaged in its development. Where complex science and technology issues are involved in policy making, this takes time, so it is important to identify emerging issues of this type and prepare engagement plans. In our horizon scanning exercise, we used a modified Delphi technique [1]. A wide group of people with interests in the science and policy interface (drawn from policy makers, policy adviser, practitioners, the private sector and academics) elicited a long list of emergent policy issues in which science and technology would feature strongly and which would also necessitate public engagement as policies are developed. This was then refined to a short list of top priorities for policy makers. Thirty issues were identified within broad areas of business and technology; energy and environment; government, politics and education; health, healthcare, population and aging; information, communication, infrastructure and transport; and public safety and national security

Future directions for scientific advice in Whitehall

Scientific advice has never been in greater demand; nor has it been more contested. From climate change to cyber-security, poverty to pandemics, food technologies to fracking, the questions being asked of scientists, engineers, social scientists and other experts by policymakers, the media and the public continue to multiply. At the same time, in the wake of the financial crisis and controversies such as ‘Climategate’, the authority and legitimacy of those same experts is under greater scrutiny. To mark the transition in April 2013 to Sir Mark Walport as the UK’s chief scientific adviser, this collection brings together new essays by more than 20 leading thinkers and practitioners, including Sir John Beddington,Sheila Jasanoff, Geoff Mulgan, Roger Pielke Jr., Jill Rutter, Mike Hulme and Sir Bob Watson. In the context of the UK government agenda for Whitehall reform, and a growing emphasis on the use of evidence in policy, these contributors chart future directions for the politics and practice of scientific advice. This project is a collaborative initiative of five partners: University of Cambridge’s Centre for Science and Policy; Science Policy Research Unit(SPRU) and ESRC STEPS Centre at the University of Sussex; Alliance for Useful Evidence; Institute for Government; and Sciencewise

Behavioural Governance in Europe

Straßheim H, Korinek R-L. Behavioural Governance in Europe. In: Doubleday R, Wilsdon J, eds. Future directions for scientific advice in Europe. Cambridge, London: CSaP/SPRU; 2015: 153-160

Science policy: beyond the great and good

Chief scientific advisers need better support and networks to ensure that science advice to governments is robus

Coordinating Multiple Spacecraft Assets for Joint Science Campaigns

This paper describes technology to support a new paradigm of space science campaigns. These campaigns enable opportunistic science observations to be autonomously coordinated between multiple spacecraft. Coordinated spacecraft can consist of multiple orbiters, landers, rovers, or other in-situ vehicles (such as an aerobot). In this paradigm, opportunistic science detections can be cued by any of these assets where additional spacecraft are requested to take further observations characterizing the identified event or surface feature. Such coordination will enable a number of science campaigns not possible with present spacecraft technology. Examples from Mars include enabling rapid data collection from multiple craft on dynamic events such as new Mars dark slope streaks, dust-devils or trace gases. Technology to support the identification of opportunistic science events and/or the re-tasking of a spacecraft to take new measurements of the event is already in place on several individual missions such as the Mars Exploration Rover (MER) Mission and the Earth Observing One (EO1) Mission. This technology includes onboard data analysis techniques as well as capabilities for planning and scheduling. This paper describes how these techniques can be cue and coordinate multiple spacecraft in observing the same science event from their different vantage points