Magnificent Seven: warm response to new science adviser picks

The members of the EU’s new seven-strong science panel have received the seal of approval from researchers, but there remains concern about the lack of detail on the advisory team’s role and agenda.

One thing most people could agree on was that the new team, announced on Tuesday, has considerable heft, including as it does outgoing head of CERN Rolf-Dieter Heuer, Fields medal winner Cédric Villani and UK Met Office chief scientist Julia Slingo.

“The panel looks very promising,” said Anne Glover, who held the role of the Commission’s chief science adviser from 2011 to 2014. “Those I know [on it] have both scientific credibility and respect as well as a deep knowledge of the world of politics. If they are given authority, independence and can act transparently, they will have a lot to offer,” she told Science|Business.

The other appointees are Elvira Fortunato, a materials scientist at NOVA University in Lisbon; Henrik Wegener, provost of the Technical University of Denmark; Janusz Bujnicki, a bioinformatician who leads the International Institute of Molecular and Cell Biology in Warsaw; and Pearl Dykstra, a sociologist at Erasmus University in Rotterdam.

The gender and national make-up of the “magnificent seven” was as expected, said former rector and chancellor of Helsinki University, Kari Raivio. “It’s nice that the Netherlands, Denmark and Portugal have a representative among the big countries. And of the important issues that the EU will have to deal with in the coming years, at least climate change and demography are represented,” he said.

“I have no reason to doubt the scientific credentials of the members, although the list of candidates is not available to judge, [so we don’t know] if even more competent ones were passed over,” Raivo added.

Doug Parr, chief scientist and policy director of Greenpeace UK, who supported the Commission’s move last November to scrap the chief scientist office, said, “It’s never been our position that it is the scientists as individuals who are the issue and I have no reason to think these seven scientists are any other than excellent people. The issue is about the independence, transparency, remit and interactions with other Commission science functions so that such a panel enhances rather than confuses the process. That has still to be worked out in practice.”

Greenpeace spokesman Mark Breddy said the lobby group will, “Urge the Commission to ensure a clear separation of scientist and political roles.”

“The Commission's decisions on issues like toxic chemicals, climate change, or controversial pesticides have a direct impact on the environment, and the health, safety, and well-being of millions of EU citizens. It is crucial that they are based on the best scientific advice available, free from the tampering of corporate lobbying and political meddling,” Breddy said.

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.

The new arrangement has engendered a lot of good will, said Lesley Wilson, secretary-general of the European University Association (EUA). “[It] shows a commitment to involving an even wider part of the EU research community, and it is to be hoped that at the same time it will provide even greater encouragement to researchers in European universities to demonstrate the societal value of their research,” she said. Wegener was EUA’s nomination for the panel. 

The warm reception so far will reassure the Commission’s research department, which was anxious to ‘get it right’ with the new panel. At the start of the year Moedas faced a barrage of criticism from high-profile scientists, particularly those in the UK, following the scrapping of Glover’s office.

Euroscience secretary-general Peter Tindemans, said the attention should now turn to substance. “How will they set their agenda? How, and who is to act when there is a crisis like BSE?” he asked.

For Martin Kowarsch, head of scientific assessments, ethics and public policy at Germany’s MCC climate change research institute, “The legal and financial foundations of the instrument are still poorly defined, as is its accountability structure.”