George Monbiot is worried about the integrity of government chief scientific advisers. Very worried. In fact one would go so far as to say that he is slightly hysterical on the issue, accusing Mark Walport of being a lobbyist (and all manner of other sins), despite the poor chap having been in his job for only a few weeks.
Among the official duties of the chief scientist is "to ensure that the scientific method, risk and uncertainty are understood by the public". Less than a month into the job, Sir Mark Walport has misinformed the public about the scientific method, risk and uncertainty. He has made groundless, unscientific and emotionally manipulative claims. He has indulged in scaremongering and wild exaggeration in support of the government's position.
This righteous anger is slightly strange, when one considers Monbiot's previous silence on the subject. The weird-beard era CSAs (May, Watson, Beddington et al.) were plainly men with a cause and were pretty much open in their lobbying activity, whether on behalf of scientists or environmentalists. One can only conclude that Monbiot is in favour of lobbying by CSAs when the cause is his own.
To my mind, the position of a CSA is a nonsense. Ministers need to hear advice from people they trust and who have expertise in an area. Why should any minister have trusted the climate science advice of Beddington, a population biologist who openly declared that he saw part of his role as promoting the interests of the scientific community in Whitehall? The minister's role is to promote the interests of the public, not of scientists.
In return for their lobbying work on behalf of scientists, CSAs fleece the taxpayer for enormous salaries and preposterous pension packages. There is therefore a huge saving to be made: close down the network of scientific advisers and take advice on an ad-hoc basis from trusted third parties.
Pielke Jr and James Wilsdon respond to Monbiot in similar vein.
Bishop Hill 