Scientists rush to the defence of EU Chief Science Adviser

There has been an impassioned response from scientific organisations, scientists, teachers and students across Europe to a demand from environmental and health lobby groups that the position of EU chief science adviser be scrapped.

A letter to Jean-Claude Juncker, President elect of the European Commission, signed by bodies including the European Academies' Science Advisory Council and the Royal Institution states, “Policy makers or lobbyists who seek to remove scientists because they don’t like their findings or advice do so at the peril of their citizens.”

Another letter from medical research charities, including the world’s second biggest charitable funder of research, the Wellcome Trust, and Cancer Research UK, Europe’s largest charitable funder in the field, commended the work the current chief scientist, Anne Glover, has done to promote scientific issues and evidence in policymaking. 

In another letter, the pan-European grass root organisation, Euroscience wrote that Glover, “Has contributed enormously” in her time in office.

Eminent scientists and science administrators added their voices. Paul Nurse, President of the Royal Society, said, “There will always be those who attack the messenger because they do not like the message, but when that message is backed up by the scientific evidence, politicians should be smart enough to listen to the independent scientific experts.”

Earlier this month Juncker confirmed to the European Parliament that he wanted to keep the position of chief science adviser when he comes into office. That statement spurred the original letter of protest, followed by wave of correspondence to Juncker, from bodies that want to see the post maintained.

“Mr Juncker believes in the added-value of independent scientific advice and will decide how to make use of such advice in the work of the new Commission after having taken up office,” his spokeswoman told Science|Business.

Rigour required

Greenpeace UK’s chief scientist, Doug Parr, who is among the signatories of the original letter, argued transparency is not written into the European system. “It’s a matter of getting that rigour back into the process. I quite understand why scientists would be upset by the idea that this post should be abolished, but it’s not living up to the standards we might have if we want science as a bulwark against corporate lobbying.”

The Cancer Prevention and Education Society, another original signatory, defended its position. “The effectiveness of the role cannot just be assumed,” the Society said. “If a scientific adviser is to be introduced, it needs to be done with care, to ensure that it does actually advance the integrity of EU scientific processes. It should not be done merely in the hope that it will; ideally, there should be evidence that it will.”

Another signatory of the original letter, the environmental lobby group GMWatch called the chief science adviser position, “a dishonest and dangerous role”.

Positions on reform

The role of chief science adviser was created in 2011 with a brief to provide independent advice to the European Commission President on any aspect of science, technology and innovation.

While the authors of the original letter have triggered a backlash and been accused of political self-interest, they have engendered a debate on how the role should be constituted in the next term.

Despite taking to Twitter to say “a very big thank you” for one of the response letters, Glover is the first to recognise that the chief science adviser role can be improved. Admitting that the process “has been a lot slower than [she] would have hoped”, she has made suggestions for change.

“Given the importance of science in Europe and the importance of evidence in good policy-making, the role needs a much bigger support group, and a budget to allow the initiatives that we want to do,” she said recently in an interview with the science journal, Nature.

The letter from medical charities called on Juncker, “to consider strengthening its remit, formalising and extending the scope of the position.”

In a similar vein Euroscience said, “Improvements must be made, which include a formalisation and clarification of the role of the chief science adviser vis-à-vis other persons or institutions in the European Union.”

The Association of Liberal Democrat Engineers and Scientists called for improvements to both the transparency of the role and the way it is used to engage citizens. 

Alongside his demand for transparency, Parr spoke about achieving greater coherence between the different scientific arms of the EU. “There’s a gaping gap between the opinion of the Joint Research Centre and the European Commission on many topics,” he said, citing biofuels as one example.  

GMwatch has said the design flaw in the chief science adviser role lies, “Not with Glover but with the pretence that a single person has the knowledge and understanding to represent the state of the science in the many areas that affect public and environmental health.”

Original letter

In the original letter, nine European health and environmental NGOs urged Juncker to scrap the role of chief science adviser, saying it is “unaccountable, intransparent [sic] and controversial”, singling out public statements by Glover on genetically modified organisms in justification of this view.

The position, “concentrates too much influence in one person, and undermines in-depth scientific research and assessments carried out by, or for, the Commission directorates in the course of policy elaboration,” the letter said.

Editor’s Note: Anne Glover is a guest member of the Science|Business Innovation Board

More info

Responses