How can science advice get – and keep – Juncker’s ear?

There have been hesitant celebrations from scientists following the announcement that the European Commission has kick-started the process of establishing a formal channel for scientific advice, following the abrupt scrapping of the post of chief scientific adviser (CSA) to the President of the Commission in November last year.

The axeing of the post, following complaints of a lack of transparency from a number of environmental pressure groups, drew protests from the scientific establishment across Europe. The backlash was keenly felt inside the Commission, sparking the present push for an alternative advice service.

Carlos Moedas, the EU’s Commissioner for Research, has the job of coming up with some new options before the summer.

While one interpretation of scrapping the CSA post is that the status of scientific advice at the top of the Commission suffered lasting damage, not everyone sees it that way.

“Juncker [actually did] the scientific community a favour,” said Roger Pielke, Professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado and author of a book on science for policy. “For the past three years, most scientific organisations and their leaders seemed perfectly content with a symbolic, ineffectual CSA in the Commission. However, the termination of the office has forced a conversation that probably should have been occurring in far more prominent settings,” Pielke said.

No strings to pull

The CSA post came into existence in 2012, with the appointment of then chief scientist of Scotland, Anne Glover. One school of thought holds that her tenure was undermined because the post was not properly supported within the Commission.

“It’s not an institutionalised position in Brussels,” said Lorna Schrefler, a research fellow with the Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), a Brussels-based think tank. “It’s terrible to say, but it all goes back to procedures.”

The CSA position was established by Juncker’s predecessor, José Manuel Barroso, in an institutional vacuum. There were minimal resources and a staff of two, eventually rising to five, to serve Glover, who has previously noted that she was in Brussels for 51 days before her first face-to-face meeting with Barroso.

That meant there was little traction in the Berlaymont corridors. Glover said she asked Commission departments to nominate a “correspondent” to help interaction with the CSA office, but that never happened.

Peter Tindemans, Secretary General of Euroscience, a grassroots forum for European scientists, says that any attempt to reintroduce the office must ensure it is not just a haphazard gesture. The post must be better protected from the political battles of the day.

Science advice should funnel into all EU policy fields, Tindemans said. “It should be mandatory that policy proposals, whether it is in health, environment, transportation, energy, agriculture or any other topic, contain an explicit section on the scientific evidence, and not just tucked away in bits and pieces in staff background analyses.”

Non-governmental agencies (NGOs), Greenpeace prominent among them, would like any new adviser held to a similar standard as lobbyists. More transparency, which may include the frequency, format and nature of science advice, is their main request. Greenpeace and other groups disagreed with Glover’s position on GMOs last year in a much-circulated open letter. 

Scientific advice by committee

One suggestion is that rather than a single appointee, the CSA post should be replaced by a committee. Finland, Denmark and Greece rely on advisory committees for science advice, as does Moedas’ home country, Portugal. 

That does not go down well with Vicky Ford, member of the European Parliament and Chair of the internal market committee. “Personally I am a bit concerned about committee structures as it can be harder for a committee to hold individual Commissioners or politicians to account,” Ford said. “It should be a person, not a committee,” 

Tindemans agreed, but he said whoever holds the post, “should not merely be an adviser to the President but the whole Commission.”

Another discussion point revolves around how much authority and independence any new advisory body will have in practice.

Whatever system is chosen, it is unlikely that a future adviser will be given free rein to give their opinions to the media, one Commission official told Science|Business. In future the brief will be, “don’t raise uncomfortable issues, even if they are topical or factually-grounded,” the official said.

There is a paradox here, since while one of the most refreshing things about Glover was her willingness to engage and answer questions properly, the main charge against her was a lack of transparency.

An email was sent to Juncker's spokesperson for a comment on the nature of future science advice and a response was pending at time of publication. 

What of the Joint Research Council?

Many argue that the EU is already full of experts, agencies and advisory mechanisms and what is lacking is the master plan to link the parts together.

James Wilsdon, professor of science and democracy at the UK’s University of Sussex and a frequent writer on the topic of science advice for governments, is withholding judgement on what the new EU structure should look be, but would like to see evidence of joined-up thinking. “It’s important not to be too fixated on structure A or structure B,” he said. “Rather, the Commission should ensure it’s all well connected.”

Bringing the Joint Research Centre, a collective of seven research institutes with a central policy team, more firmly into the Commission’s plans for evidence- based policy is a common plea heard around Brussels. “The JRC is a lost opportunity,” said Schrefler. “You cannot oblige [its] scientists to adapt all their research for policy but they should play a more central role,” she added.

“There should be a stronger link between [a future science adviser] and the JRC,” said Tindemans. “But the chief adviser should not be head of the JRC: the day-to-day responsibilities of managing a large staff would be too distracting.”

Evidence ambassadors

Science advice comes in many forms. The US and UK share a long history in the field and were the first to appoint government chief scientists. The UK has one in virtually every department – although there have been mutterings that this practice is being steadily eroded.

Equivalents have also been appointed in Australia, Cuba, Czech Republic, India, Malaysia and New Zealand. In Ireland, the role was controversially merged with the office of the director general of funding agency Science Foundation Ireland. In Spain, Italy and Sweden, science advice comes from civil servants.

In general, the bug is catching. New forums are sprouting up, for example within the United Nations system. Last August, experts from more than forty-five countries assemble in Auckland, New Zealand, for the largest-ever summit on scientific advice. Glover herself launched a new network of government science advisers from twelve EU member states last year.

Having a CSA is considered useful for quick, informal advice but when the issue is protracted and technically complex, other forums are seen as more appropriate.

Countries such as Austria, Hungary and the Netherlands, look to the president of the national academy of science to perform the role. In Germany, Chancellor Angela Merkel designated a science academy, the Leopoldina, to lead in science policy advice – but she has also set up several issue-specific advisory committees. 

In other countries there are high-level councils for science, which pool together senior scientists with representatives of industry, higher education and civil society. Examples include Japan’s Council for Science, Technology and Innovation (CSTI) and the US President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST).