Communication of Science Advice to Government. (January 2016)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Hutchings, Jeffrey A.; Stenseth, Nils Chr.
• Is Part Of: Trends in ecology & evolution. Volume 31:Number 1(2016)
• Page Start: 7
• Page End: 11
• Publication Date: 2016-01
• Subjects: science policy -- decision-makers -- advocacy -- bias -- advisory models; Ecology -- Periodicals; Evolution (Biology) -- Periodicals; 576.8
• DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2015.10.008
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0169-5347

Abstract

Abstract : 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. Trends: 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.