Being an Expert and Using Expertise: Scientific committees, advisory groups and experts in policy making

“Once you’re on the list you can

keep on doing it”

Rational and linear policy making?

“Clearly one has to be permitted to speculate on the wisdom of gathering some number, say 10–15 intellectual people, of putting them together, and

asking them to listen to some lectures, and then asking them to sum it all up into

guidelines that are to be in force in the future.” (Saetnan 2002)

Forms of Knowledge

….

Issue Advocates and Honest Brokers (Pielke 2007)

Membership and remit“Every administration advances its agenda by making political appointments of scientists and

managers to direct its agencies. But disbanding and stacking these public

committees out of fear that they may offer advice that conflicts with administration

policies devalues the entire federal advisory committee structure and the work of dedicated

scientists”

(Science 2002)

The ‘Expert’

• The performance of expertise:– Tools, equipment,

clothing, etc– Doing as being

Research Questions and Policy Choices

Policy wants to:

reduce ambient air pollution through cooperation (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, 2008, European Environmental Bureau, 2005)

and wants to know if:

Is it feasible to have a legally binding limit value of 20 μg/m3 for PM 2.5 across the European Union, considering significant periods of exposure in relation to the averaging period (CAFE Working Group on Particulate Matter, 2004a).

Research Questions and Policy Choices

Researchers want to know:

the evidence from recent prospective studies in children to support a contribution of long-term traffic pollution to the development of asthma-like symptoms and allergic sensitization (Bråbäck & Forsberg 2009)

By:

Expected impact on peak expiratory flow (l.min-1) of a 50 mg.m-3 rise in pollutant (Ward & Ayres 2003)

Transparency and accountability

• “make publicly available the missions assigned to experts and choose the experts according to a code of ethical conduct. Calls for tender must – and this is crucial for the question of liability – state unambiguously the physical person or corporate entity commissioning the expert report” Weill 2003

Policy, politics and the public

• What does the public want?

Bureaucracy and accountability

In what contexts are your expert opinions sought?

What expert groups do you sit on?

How did you become part of this group?

 

How are the groups you sit on governed?

 

Who makes decision regarding membership?

How are members sought?

 

How is excellence of an expert judged?

How is independence of an expert judged?

How is plurality of expertise judged and maintained?

 

How is transparency in seeking and acting on advice maintained?

How is transparency in accountability maintained?

 

How is effectiveness judged?

How are costs (efforts, time, expenses) measured?

How are outcomes (impact, reports) evaluated?

 

Under what circumstances is anyone either excluded from membership, or excluded from particular discussion (eg conflicts of interest clauses)?

Who judges when these circumstances should be in force?

How is the remit of the group decided?

(How) are the actions/decisions limited to those within its remit?

Aims for today

• Describe and comment on current practice

• Identify common features and good practice in different sectors

• Share experience of problems and difficulties

• Generate questions