Does the EU need a new agency for science policy advice?
The current system of providing scientific evidence to EU policy makers is inefficient and lacks credibility, according to a new report released in March by the European Policy Centre (EPC), an independent Brussels-based think tank. One of the solutions, it suggests, is to create a European Academy of Sciences that mirrors the U.S. National Academies and its operating arm, the National Research Council (NRC). While many science policy experts in the EU acknowledge the present system's weaknesses, they challenge the need for another scientific organization.
EU policy makers now obtain their information and advice from scientists through European Commission-run committees and working groups; independent risk assessment agencies for medicines and food; and the Brussels-based Joint Research Centre, which conducts studies on request. Many professional organizations also exist, such as the Academia Europaea, which promotes education and research, and the European Academies Science Advisory Council (EASAC), which brings national academies together. However, recent events, such as the "mad cow disease" food scare, have undermined public confidence in how policy makers handle scientific issues, say experts.
"It is not the provision of good scientific advice that is the problem," says EPC's Lorenzo Allio. "It is the use that is made of that advice in decision making. We need clearer rules to ensure that [information and advice are] collected and used properly." For example, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget has produced guidelines on data quality and peer review of scientific work that impose standards on government agencies (Environ. Sci. Technol. 2002, 36, 444A).
Allio argues that the whole system of advice lacks credibility and that a European Academy of Sciences could improve this. "An overarching organization would give scientists status and improve their accountability and people's trust in them," he says. "The public is concerned over transparency: how experts are chosen, how their advice is used and made public. And they are concerned that regulators use advice to justify their choices. Although other scientific organizations exist, they don't contribute as much as they should and don't enjoy the same status as, say, the NRC."
Advisory committees abound in the United States, too, but the NRC, say experts, acts as the final scientific arbitrator or a "Supreme Court" of science. "NRC reports, produced by a balanced committee of experts, have a high degree of credibility and hold great weight, says John Holmes, a senior program officer at NRC. This is partly because the process is so transparent. Names of potential committee members are posted on the web and vetted for conflicts of interest, and the final report is peer-reviewed.
The EU's best bet is to work with what exists already, counters Peter Collins, secretary of EASAC. Collins believes that a European Academy of Sciences is unlikely to ever materialize. EASAC, which started in 2001, could in time replicate the NRC's function. "EASAC is a way for national academies to feed into the EU and has been accepted as a formal channel of advice by EU institutions," he reports. Like the NRC, many of these national academies, such as the U.K.'s Royal Society, already produce respected reports but for a national audience.
Frédéric Sgard, vice president of Euroscience, a nongovernmental organization that promotes science, believes that no single body can provide the expertise needed for good scientific advice. He favors a flexible approach that involves ad hoc groups of experts. The political climate is different in the EU, says Sgard. "Science is rarely a major political issue in Europe, unlike the U.S. Hence, scientists usually carry less weight in their advisory capacity on policies. " As NRC's Holmes explains: "In the U.S., government agencies and most groups that play in the policy arena agree that sound science is the way to approach problems; they believe in science."
The EPC document can be found at www.theepc.be/en/default.asp?TYP=TEWN&LV=472&PG=TEWN/EN/detail&AI=472.
