The new EU science advisers: why we want the role and what we expect

“It’s always been a challenge – I’d say an interesting one – to work with policymakers,” says Pearl Dykstra, professor of sociology at the Erasmus University in Rotterdam, who on Tuesday was chosen as one of seven advisers on the European Commission’s new and long-awaited panel for science.

The so-called Scientific Advice Mechanism replaces the controversial single adviser role held by Anne Glover from 2011 - 2014.

The new group comprises four men and three women from seven countries and seven disciplines. It boasts a clutch of heavyweights including departing CERN head Rolf-Dieter Heuer, renowned French mathematician Cédric Villani and UK Met Office chief scientist Julia Slingo.

The way Dykstra sees it, the collaborative model of science and policy is in need of a little oiling, and this is something the new panel can help apply.  

“For the last few years I’ve seen a movement, although I don’t like that word, towards ‘fact-free politics’ in parliaments around Europe,” she said. With the formation of the panel, “I see clear evidence that there’s a recognition of scientific evidence from this Commission,” Dykstra said.

Dykstra suggested that the panel was selected not only on the basis of personal expertise but because of their contacts. “A lot of the job will be saying, ‘I don’t know the answer but I’ll get you someone who does.’ We can put the Commission in touch with the right people.”

Along with her colleagues, Dykstra has been given a two and a half year mandate, which is renewable once. Under the new system, the panel will funnel advice to the Commission from national academies and the wider scientific community. Up to €6 million will be made available to European academies to support collaborations and the scientists will have access to a staff of 25 to help carry out their work.

From this perspective the new mechanism can be seen as significantly expanding and beefing up Juncker’s  access to scientific advice – as sole incumbent, Glover had three support staff.

For Villani, director of the Henri Poincaré Institute in Paris, the role counts because, “It’s important that there’s a greater participation of scientists in policymaking.”

“Maths is an abstract construction, I know, but you can see in computer science how it’s playing a more important role in our lives than ever. So I’ll be the one representing this field,” Villani said.  

Taking a seat on the panel also goes some way towards reaching his own scientific outreach goals, which since winning the Fields medal – the ‘Nobel Prize for Mathematics’ – in 2010 have grown significantly.

Janusz Bujnicki, head of the laboratory of bioinformatics and protein engineering at the International Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology in Warsaw, reiterated the importance of having a good knack for networking.

“I bring my experience in connecting people – different groups, organisations, people of different ages and even political views,” he said.

With the group not meeting for the first time until January, any talk of its agenda is premature, says Henrik Wegener, executive vice-president, chief academic officer and provost of the Technical University of Denmark, who calls the prospect of working on the panel “humbling”.

“We are starting from scratch,” he said. “We will develop our procedures from practice, just like anything else.”

Science advice schematics

Looks confusing? “In reality, it’ll be even more complicated than that,” said Bujnicki.

Slotting into the jigsaw puzzle

As scientists with some political experience, the members of the new panel will be aware that between all the carefully calibrated mandarin speak, politicians’ promises and vested interests, the scientific evidence may well translate as an unpalatable truth in Brussels.

Glover, Scottish biologist and the first and only chief scientific adviser to the President, found herself in tricky territory more than once during her tenure. Her forthright approach and refusal to hedge what the science said made some politicians nervous. It also triggered protests from NGOs and environmental groups that disagreed with the evidence she presented.

Ultimately, Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker decided to scrap the role last November, asking his Research Commissioner Carlos Moedas to come up with a new system.

While Glover’s experience may well have given the new panel members pause for thought, they were tight-lipped on the matter.

“It’s not my role to comment,” Villani said. “There is no longer a chief scientist position – that issue has been resolved. He added, “I can’t see how people can oppose the new construction.”

For Bujnicki these issues go with the territory. “In science alone there’s a lot of disagreement,” he said, rather phlegmatically. “That’s the way it moves forward. Without disagreement, we won’t progress.”

Wegener said that when it comes to giving advice on a thorny policy issue, “There’s sometimes a tendency to separate people into ‘pro-’ and ‘anti-’ boxes. But, the main thing is that scientists don’t make any decisions - that’s the politicians’ job.”

Another problem faced by Glover was how to get on the radar in Brussels. After leaving the job she admitted her office felt cut off from the rest of the administration.

Bujnicki, the youngest member in the new team, said he is not familiar with EU institutions but will have to wait until January to get the lie of the land. “The first thing I’ll want to find out is how the different EU bodies work together. “What is the information flow like? And what’s the influence flow?” he says.

From the outside looking in, “I can see why it’s not always easy for a scientist to navigate,” said Wegener.  

The science adviser role will not be uncomfortable, Dykstra believes. “I’m sure there’ll be a little pressure from NGOs, but we are scientists and we’ll maintain our independence,” she said.  “We can learn from Glover’s experience. It’s different now: she was only one person with three staff.”