Would you trust a web search to deliver the evidence needed to change the law? That's an accusation made against the EU.
The Royal Society (RS), "the UK's national academy of science," has taken to pronouncing on just about anything of a technical nature that moves. They do sometimes come up with a novel take on things, though. For example, they have just put out a press release, and posted a letter, complaining that
a prominent report which cites 'internet searches' and 'circumstantial anecdotes' as a basis for some of its recommendations could influence changes to EU legislation.
What has upset the RS is that the Animal Health and Welfare panel of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) has come up with a report, produced at the request of the European Commission, that is "expected to inform the revision of EU Directive 86/609EEC on the protection of animals used in scientific research". In particular, the press release tells us that "'internet searches in the US' are cited as scientific evidence for conclusions on the sensitivity of rodents to carbon dioxide".
Professor Ole Petersen, Vice President of the Royal Society who sits on the Society's Animals in Research Committee, says: "We are deeply concerned about the evidence cited in such an influential report. Neither circumstantial evidence, nor unspecified internet searches should ever be considered as adequate scientific evidence to inform scientific opinion."
The letter goes into some detail about several questions where "we believe objective scientific data has not been included, leading to conclusions and assumptions that are not evidence based". Ouch.
Receive the Funding Newswire each Tuesday, our Policy Bulletin each Thursday, and news about bridging Europe’s east-west innovation gap twice a month in The Widening. 
A unique international forum for public research organisations and companies to connect their external engagement with strategic interests around their R&D system.
