A few days ago we looked at Julia Slingo's climate change paper, which she circulated in the wake of Climategate. A reader recently pointed me to this article in the journal Science and Public Affairs - a publication of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (as the BSA was called at that time). It's by William Waldegrave, a science minister in the last Conservative government in the UK, and is entitled "When scientists advise politicians - how to avoid the pitfalls".
These are some practical proposals for scientists advising the government:
(1) Never present to a Minister on a scientific issue without a potted history of the development of the subject first (e.g. shifts back and forth in consensus on air pollution and forest damage)
(2) always include an analysis of dissident views and how much it would matter if they were right
(3) never try to confine advice to what you think the Minister wants to hear (this is the sin against the Holy Ghost)
(4) never confine advice to that derived from the Departmental Research programme,the UK Government-funded research programme,or even UK research
(5) never use scare tactics to try to increase your funding: the Treasury is cynical enough as it is
(6) Treat popular journalists with deep suspicion – even if they offer to make you famous.
And some practical proposals for politicians:
(1) always ask for a seminar and insist that dissidents are present
(2) if you are told there are no dissidents, check with the Royal Society; ask around
(3) if a serious journalist says you are being badly advised, ask him or her to come and see you
(4) never say something is ‘totally safe’ or ‘absolutely certain’ even if you are goaded by the press
(5) if you ask your Chief Scientist or whoever to speak for you, make sure he or she doesn’t start fancying themselves as a politician and forget the rules you have set yourself
(6) Give yourself time to think.These should help – but there will inevitably be cock-ups
So, how well do we think Professor Slingo did?