The EU needs a new scientific advice team, says WHO chief scientist

Abolishing the post of EU Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) has left the role of scientific advice in European policymaking in an ambiguous position. A new, independent, well-resourced team, headed by a top scientist, is needed to provide objective, impartial inputs, says the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) chief scientist for Europe, Roberto Bertollini.

The decision to axe the CSA last November was “particularly disturbing” said Bertollini. “It wasn’t explicitly made clear why the position was [scrapped].” Now, the role of science advice in the EU is “ambiguous,” Bertollini told Science|Business. Bertolli made his remarks as the former CSA Anne Glover went public on the abolition of the post and the campaign by environmental pressure groups to oust her. Reflecting on her achievements, frustrations and the future prospects for scientific advice in Europe, Glover told the BBC, “I could have achieved very much more.”

Ideology dominates debate

Amongst the many scientists to object when the CSA post was axed, Bertollini said the move demonstrates that, “Ideology and vested interests continue to dominate the public debate in Europe and elsewhere.” 

This is happening irrespective of the attempts to bring knowledge and science-based advice into the picture. That is not to say that political decision making should be only scientifically-based, said Bertollini, who fronts the WHO’s operations in Brussels. “It should be science-oriented, but politicians can decide whatever they like.”

In the long run, not having a source of impartial science advice will cede the ground to groups with vested interests that will interpret scientific knowledge in a way that is compatible with their views, Bertollini warned.

To avoid this, the European Commission should be served by a team of scientists. “I think there should be a group of advisers with specific competence for the main policy areas, environment, health, energy, for example,” he said.

The team should be headed by one top scientist whose job is to synthesise and communicate the work of the team. “You need someone to take responsibility,” said Bertollini. 

More investment needed in scientific advice

One of Glover’s problems was the small size of her staff, Bertollini suggested. Initially, the CSA had a team of two, which rose to five over the course of her tenure.

“A scientist needs a much bigger service. It costs money but it’s a good investment; it can [help] society avoid bad choices,” Bertollini said. 

There has been no confidence-building declaration of intent from Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker on the future of the service, in Bertollini’s view. This is despite news that Carlos Moedas, the EU’s Commissioner for Research, has been given the job of suggesting new options for bringing independent science advice to the top of the EU executive.

“I want to believe this service will remain; that this [is] an evolutionary phase. But I’ll remain sceptical until I see it,” said Bertollini. 

Genetically modified crops continue to cloud scientific advice

In an open letter to the Commission President, Jean-Claude Juncker, sent following his election last year, Greenpeace and others accused Glover of promoting "one-sided, partial opinions" on genetically modified crops. 

For Bertollini, the campaign by environmental groups to get rid of Glover because they did not agree with her assessment that genetically modified crops pose no risk to human health, underlines how critical it is that the European Commission has access to independent advice. Any debate on genetically modified crops needs facts, not scaremongering, he said.

From a policy perspective there are any number of reasons not to license genetically modified crops, Bertollini noted. “Maybe they’re expensive; you don’t want big companies to monopolise the market; you want to keep traditional culture – you can say that.”

“But to use arguments that are not scientifically valid, this I don’t accept,” he said. “You can say everything [else] but you cannot say GM crops have health impacts.” The WHO’s position is that genetically modified crops are safe to eat. In a 2005 study, the agency concluded, “GM foods currently traded on the international market have passed risk assessments in several countries and are not likely, nor have been shown, to present risks for human health.”

Glove(r) s are off

Glover too, made the same point, when she broke her silence on the campaign against her, accusing the non-governmental organisations of, "ignoring the evidence" and "fabricating a scenario" with their opposition to GM crops.

In various interviews with the media in the UK this week, Glover pointed to positive achievements, but said she could have done “much more” if the post of CSA had been properly supported. 

But it was the row about genetically modified crops that dominated exchanges. She herself is “not a strong advocate of GM crops,” Glover told the BBC TV. "What I am saying is that the technology used to generate GM crops is safe; that is what the scientific consensus is.”

Any government is free to decide whether genetically modified crops should be licensed. But, said Glover, “To keep on saying that we don't have enough evidence, or that there might be some kind of unforeseen negative consequence of using this technology, that is simply not the case.”

In another interview, Glover said she was “deeply disappointed” with NGOs who campaigned against her. “Those NGOs were NGOs that I used to trust and I think many citizens do trust – they are like the unelected voice of citizens,” she said on BBC Radio. “I think that they have ignored the evidence and they have fabricated a scenario.”

Luisa Colasimone, a spokesman for Greenpeace, denied there had been a crusade against Glover’s views on GM. “The reason Greenpeace and 28 other NGOs called for the EU chief scientific adviser to be scrapped was not because of a disagreement over GM food. It is about the integrity of all scientific processes within the Commission and respect for evidence,” she said. 

Glover has been speaking out after leaving her post as the EU’s first CSA at the end of January. She said before leaving she had asked for a meeting with Juncker, which never materialised. “They did not want to hear from me about what had worked and what had not worked in my role,” Glover said. 

A spokeswoman for Juncker said he would not be responding to the comments.