The U.K. Office of Science and Technology has recently issued a “consultation (PDF)” requesting guidance on an update to its guidelines on the interface of science and policy. Specifically, “The Guidelines on Scientific Analysis in Policy Making is a high-level document addressing the way in which Government departments obtain and use analysis and advice in policy-making.” It seems to me the that community of scholars who study science and decision making might have some useful input to this consultation.

The draft update observes, “The environment in which Ministers must make decisions is continually changing. In recent years we have seen the level of public interest in evidence based issues increase, and in some cases the level of public confidence in the government’s ability to make sound decisions based on that evidence has decreased. It is therefore essential that an effective advisory process exists which allows decision-makers access to a high-quality and wide-ranging evidence base. This will enable them to make informed decisions, to deal effectively with crises and to ensure that all opportunities are explored to their full potential. In short, we must ensure that:
• key decision makers can be confident that evidence is robust and stands up to challenges of credibility, reliability and objectivity
• key decision makers can be confident that the advice derived from the analysis of the evidence also stands up to these challenges
• the public are aware, and are in turn confident, that such steps are being taken

The principles laid out within these guidelines are consistent with the current better policy making guidelines to which policy makers adhere. They aim to further highlight the importance of the role of evidence in policy making, and to increase the awareness of policy makers on how best to seek good quality evidence from the most credible sources at the most appropriate time.”

Here are the specific questions that input is being requested on.

“In this consultation document the Government invites responses to the following questions:
Consultation Question 1
Peer review and publication can be important factors in the robustness of the evidence used by government departments in policy making decisions, so:
• What should the CSA guidelines say about this? Should we say that best practice is for each department being responsible for ensuring all research/evidence is peer reviewed unless there are very exceptional circumstances? What might those circumstances be?
• How should we deal with ‘breaking news’ where the new evidence might be radically different?
• How should policy makers mitigate the impact of radical evidential change on existing bodies of evidence?
• Should we suggest they attempt a fast track peer review in parallel and share with key experts who can seek to replicate?

Consultation Question 2
Departmental use of the guidelines will be difficult to measure. The guidelines are principle based and in most cases will be woven into departmental guidance on better policy making. It is also important to recognise that departments are subject to a considerable amount of evaluation already, so:
• How should we evaluate? Do we simply say here that OST will work with senior policy makers in each department to ensure that the principles of the guidelines are fully embedded in departmental policy procedures?
• Do we say this will be followed up in greater detail under Science and Innovation Strategy Assessments?
• Should we suggest we will sample significant policy documents/publications to see what they tell us?”

The full “consultation (PDF)” document has instructions for submission of input.