Scientific Advice for Policymaking: OECD Global Science Forum's Preliminary Findings

1. OECD GLOBAL SCIENCE FORUM SCIENTIFIC ADVICE FOR POLICYMAKING AND CONSEQUENCES FOR THE ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF SCIEN T ISTS PRELIMINARY FINDINGS Tateo Arimoto Professor, GRIPS Yasushi Sato Fellow, JST-CRDS 29 August 2014 Auckland, NZ

2. 2 BACKGROUND The Global Science Forum (GSF) of the OECD is a venue dedicated to international science policy. Project on scientific advice proposed at a GSF meeting in Stockholm (October 2012), following the conviction of scientists in connection with the LAquila earthquake Project approved in spring 2013 with two focuses: Track 1 Organisation and procedure of scientific advice, interface between science and policy Track 2 Potential responsibility and liability of scientific advisers and of advisory structures Expert Groups composed of over 25 experts from 16 countries and international organisations, co-chaired by: Track 1: Japan (Tateo Arimoto) and the Netherlands (Jack Spaapen) Track 2: Germany (Jan Wessels) and Italy (Mauro Rosi)

3. Interviews with over 40 advisory experts, legal experts and decision-makers from 22 countries and international organisations Review of the literature and of existing frameworks and ToRs Tokyo workshop (October 2013) Focusing on the diversity of arrangements and practices Berlin workshop (February 2014) Focusing on responsibility and liability of scientific advisers Final report expected early 2015 3 PROJECT OUTLINE

4. Different scientific advisory structures coexist in many countries, with different role : Science Policy advisory structures Permanent (or ad hoc) scientific/technical advisory structures Academic institutions Individual scientific advisors and counsellors Many countries do not have transparent or clearly defined advisory structures or procedures and still rely on ad hoc mechanisms International organisations or dedicated structures play an increasing role in scientific advice on global/complex issues 4 Advisory Systems Findings / Highlights 1

5. Framing the question: - Involve all key stakeholders; define output (assessments, recommendations, options) Selecting the advisors: - Minimize conflicts of interest - Open and transparent selection procedures - Independence of experts and of the advisory body by appropriate statutes - Need for growing cooperation between multiple disciplines Producing the advice: - Assessment and clear communication of uncertainties - Recording minority views Communicating and using the advice: - Clear processes and responsibilities for communication to decision-makers and to the public Principles/guidelines on the roles and responsibilities of scientists are needed 5 Advisory Processes Findings / Highlights 2

6. Established processes and ideally permanent structures are essential. Identification of a mandated and respected science institution or spokesperson , who can deliver authoritative advice to decision-making bodies, is important. Need to have a predefined communication strategy that identifies responsibilities. International coordination of scientific advice is a particular challenge in responding to major crises. Trans- national networks of national advisory bodies could facilitate effective information exchange and coordination. 6 Providing Advice in Crisis Situations Findings / Highlights 3

7. There is a danger that, in the light of the LAquila case and in the face of growing risks of prosecution, scientists will change their behavior. Steps that can be taken: - The legal liabilities and risks of all advisory bodies and individuals serving on those bodies should be clearly recorded and understood . - Clear procedures and guidelines for the operation of advisory bodies should be developed. - Procedures for declaring and dealing with conflicts of interest should be implemented. - Individuals serving on bodies should receive training in communication skills . - There should be a clear understanding of the responsibilities of the experts (due process) and that of the decision-makers. 7 Responsibility and Potential Liabilities Findings / Highlights 4

8. International Dimension - Increasing number of global issues that require scientific advice, but specific challenges associated with global issues: complexity, multi-disciplinarity, international policy processes - Challenges for scientific advice at international level: - Need for political, scientific and public legitimacy - Need for validation processes - Need to evaluate the impact of the advice - On issues that require a concerted global effort, a better coordination of science advisory structures across different scales (local-global) may assist concerted policy actions. 8 Emerging Issues (1) Findings / Highlights 5

9. Growing Involvement of Civil Society - Scientific expertise is increasingly complemented by representatives from civil society in scientific advisory structures, often at the request of the decision-makers. - The rapid development of ICT and social media has opened up exciting new possibilities (and challenges) for soliciting and disseminating scientific views. - Issues raised by such involvement: - Responsibilities (between scientists and non-scientists; between advisory bodies and decision-makers; of the scientific advisory bodies on non-scientific issues) - Transparency (stakeholder and public consultation) - Quality (what is the value of non-scientific advice ?) - Public reporting and communication 9 Emerging Issues (2) Findings / Highlights 6

10. First half of 2015 Publication of the Final Report 20-21 October 2015 OECD-CSTP ministerial meeting (in Korea): Discussion item on scientific advice for policy (opportunity for a policy statement/ministerial declaration) 2015-17 Potential further work on specific issues of interest if mandated by ministers; potential role of the GSF in facilitating international cooperation on scientific advice 10 NEXT STEPS