Comments on: UK Chief Scientist Argues for More Science Advice in the EU. http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5056 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: David Bruggeman http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5056&cpage=1#comment-12946 David Bruggeman Sun, 15 Mar 2009 00:00:40 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5056#comment-12946 The UK advisers are scattered throughout various ministries, and advise those ministers. There is a greater expectation of independence, where MPs have complained about a lack of criticism from science advisers, most recently Beddington. http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/20/homeopathy-cannabis-john-beddington As the BBC News article indicated, the advisers in the UK are somehow expected to oppose their ministers if they think their policies are unworkable. This leads me to see the system as having an Inspector General quality to it. This is unheard of in U.S. government. As for boards vs. individual advisers, this seems to presume a situation where the individual advisers are the sole adviser. Individual scientists who act like cowboys in the U.S. don't get political jobs. The UK advisers are scattered throughout various ministries, and advise those ministers. There is a greater expectation of independence, where MPs have complained about a lack of criticism from science advisers, most recently Beddington.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jan/20/homeopathy-cannabis-john-beddington

As the BBC News article indicated, the advisers in the UK are somehow expected to oppose their ministers if they think their policies are unworkable. This leads me to see the system as having an Inspector General quality to it. This is unheard of in U.S. government.

As for boards vs. individual advisers, this seems to presume a situation where the individual advisers are the sole adviser. Individual scientists who act like cowboys in the U.S. don’t get political jobs.

]]> By: docpine http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5056&cpage=1#comment-12934 docpine Sat, 14 Mar 2009 15:15:37 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=5056#comment-12934 Seems like there are a couple of issues: How many science advisors? (Is more better, up to a point after which utility diminishes?) Where are the science advisors? (giving advice to the President directly or to Secretaries of individual departments or both?) What disciplines do they possess and how do they take advantage of other relevant disciplines? (through advisory bodies or do they just take their own discipline's view?) How independent are they? These all seems like arguments for advisory boards rather than individual science advisors. But perhaps that is part of our American culture, individual scientist as cowboy riding into town rather than part of a group (council of wise elders?). Seems like there are a couple of issues:

How many science advisors? (Is more better, up to a point after which utility diminishes?)

Where are the science advisors? (giving advice to the President directly or to Secretaries of individual departments or both?)

What disciplines do they possess and how do they take advantage of other relevant disciplines? (through advisory bodies or do they just take their own discipline’s view?)

How independent are they?

These all seems like arguments for advisory boards rather than individual science advisors. But perhaps that is part of our American culture, individual scientist as cowboy riding into town rather than part of a group (council of wise elders?).

]]>