EU to form new 7-member science advice panel

A long-running spat over scientific policy came to a surprise finish with an announcement from the European Commission that it will appoint a seven-member panel to provide it with vetted scientific advice on policy. 

In a departure from the previous way of doing things, when a single Chief Scientific Advisor (CSA) reported to the Commission President, the new group of  seven senior scientists will be accessible to all top lawmakers in Brussels. The new system will also create a funnel to better access expertise in Europe’s national academies and learned societies.

Research Commissioner Carlos Moedas, who drew up the plan and wants to have it running by Autumn, said his role in the new system will be that of a go-between.

“I will be a political facilitator… matching demand [from Commissioners] with supply [the appropriate expert],” he said at a press conference earlier today.

The announcement – at least a month earlier than expected – is intended to end a nasty political fight that had broken out in Brussels over a seemingly academic question: Who is best qualified to advise the EU on what scientific evidence has to say about policy? The issue had cropped up repeatedly in arguments over genetically modified organisms, stem cell research, shale gas and other issues. In each case, opponents had accused each other of distorting the scientific facts to argue their point – and then accused the Commission of listening to the wrong scientists when making its decisions.

It all came to a head last year, when Anne Glover, the CSA, was accused by environmental activists of being cozy with pro-GMO companies. She denied it; but the new Commission president, Jean-Claude Juncker, apparently decided it was a political fuss he didn’t want to perpetuate – and so he didn’t renew her mandate in the job.

Juncker asked Moedas to come up with a new system of scientific advice – and that’s what was announced May 13th in Brussels at a news conference.

Who will be on the panel?

The process of picking members for the panel has yet to begin. “It’s not up to politicians [to do this],” said Moedas. Instead, a selection committee – comprising three or four people – will “go around the world” to find the right candidates, according to the Commissioner.

The European Research Council (ERC), a frontier research funder in Europe which also has an independent, high-level committee, has been a clear inspiration for Moedas’ design. “We’ll copy the model for how the ERC chooses the best people,” he confirmed. He may also have cast an eye to places like Finland, Denmark and Greece or his own country Portugal: all have governments that rely on advisory committees for science advice.

Selected scientists will retain their day jobs and sit on Moedas’ new panel part-time, although it’s not known how frequently they’ll meet. “They will not be employees of the Commission,” said Moedas. They will however be compensated for the days they meet in Brussels.

No budget for the new panel was announced but up to 25 civil servants from the Commission’s research directorate could help staff the panel, Moedas said. By comparison, a staff of two, eventually rising to five, served Glover during her three year term.

A key part of the new system will be drawing on expertise housed in national academies around Europe, the Commission added.

Creating a more regular funnel between academies and Brussels won’t be hard, said Matthias Johannsen, executive secretary of the European Federation of Academies of Sciences and Humanities (ALLEA), an umbrella group comprising 58 academies: “We have coordination mechanisms already in place between our members and other associations and we hope to extend them to the Commission.”

An all-star cast of award-winning European scientists – including Sir Paul Nurse, Jules Hoffmann, Serge Haroche, László Lovász, Jean Tirole and Edvard Ingjald Moser – were invited to the launch today in Commission HQ. Moedas didn’t comment on whether any of this distinguished group would be joining the new panel – or have a hand in selecting it.

A source close to the discussions said the invitation served as symbolic gesture, if nothing else. “Among them were those who vocally opposed the Commission’s decision to abolish Glover’s office.”

Much still to be seen

Initial reactions from research lobbyists and non-governmental organisations were positive. Kurt Deketelaere, Secretary-General of the League of European Research Universities, released a statement saying: "An open and continuous dialogue between the scientific community and the EU policy makers is absolutely crucial and necessary. An important step has been made today.”

Martin Pigeon, a researcher with Corporate Europe Observatory, a campaign group which was critical of the old CSA post, wrote: "The decision by the Commission to replace the CSA position with a committee is in itself a progress from an independence perspective, as it is harder to influence a committee than an individual and it will avoid creating the problematic symbolic power of a ‘science chief’.

But how the new panel works in practice is another story.    

Reading the tea leaves, Roger Pielke, a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, sees a potential conflict of interest in the new science panel drawing staff from the Commission's research directorate.

"It is a little bit like putting an agricultural ministry in charge of advocating for farmers and for healthy diets. You'd like to think that these two interests always go hand in hand, but experience shows that they sometimes don't. Experience shows that separating institutions that support science and those that support policy helps to avoid unnecessary conflicts," he writes in a blog post. 

Another discussion point revolves around how much authority and independence any new advisory body will have. After Glover’s departure, Commission insiders have been betting that any new scientific advisors would have less freedom to speak out publicly on controversial issues. But Moedas said the panel won’t be muzzled. “As independent scientists, they [will be] free to talk to the press,” he said.

Philippe de Backer, a member of the European Parliament sitting with the liberal ALDE group, added: "How independent can experts be from national interests? You really need a science body, not another political body."

A series of high-profile essays written by academics and insiders recently pointed out that the EU is already chock full of experts, agencies and advisory mechanisms and what is lacking is the master plan to link the parts together. Bringing the Joint Research Centre (JRC), a collective of seven research labs with a central policy team, more firmly into the Commission’s plans for evidence-based policy is a common plea heard around Brussels.

How the new panel will slot into the crowded universe of evidence-givers remains to be seen but Moedas said someone will be watching out for duplication. “We’ll have coordination; we’ll be more able to avoid [duplication] than before.”

For Christiane Diehl, executive director of the European Academies' Science Advisory Council, collaboration with the JRC isn’t enough. “The new group acknowledges there’s science outside the JRC: it’s there to create dialogue with established players elsewhere in Europe.”

The European Commission press release is available here, including a link to a power-point presentation given earlier today.