Science adviser's independence of mind

The role of the UK government's chief scientific adviser is to consult with the country's leading scientists, to identify cutting-edge research, and to harness it for the service of country and industry.

Sir David King said exactly what he thought

Profile: Sir David King

Sir David King has been one of three chief scientific advisers that I've dealt with as a BBC science correspondent. From close quarters, I've seen how important the role is.

The job, from my perspective, involves assisting government deal with civil emergencies. It also helps interpret the constant and sometimes contradictory babble of information politicians have to deal with.

Sir David began his tenure with a backdrop of discord, error, doubt and despair. Following the BSE crisis, trust in scientific advice from government was at an all time low, and climate change was still a fringe issue. The use of scientific advice within government departments was, at best, patchy.

The making of Sir David was his handling of the foot-and-mouth crisis in 2001. The epidemic was spiralling out of control; but with the help of Lord Krebs he pushed for a policy of contiguous culling.

It was politically unpopular. The vets didn't understand it and didn't want it; and ministers were loth to see pictures of smoke from burning carcasses blotting out the Sun.

But it was the right thing to do. And, despite tremendous pressure, he fought for the policy to continue.

It was this call that won Sir David the confidence of not only the prime minister, but - more importantly - the public.

Climate change

Sir David will perhaps be best remembered for his work in raising the profile of climate change.

In 2003, the issue was not high on the government's agenda. So he wrote his now famous article in Science magazine. He said that climate change posed a greater threat to the world than international terrorism.

I daresay he got a rollicking.

But I would point to that incident as the moment Sir David got the prime minister's attention on climate change. It was that "kick up the backside" that persuaded Tony Blair to put climate change and Africa on top of the agenda for the Gleneagles Summit in 2005. It was then subsequently put firmly on the top of the international agenda.

To my mind, Sir David's chief asset has been his passion. He has had the guts to say and fight for what he believes in.

Critics have argued that while this is his strength, it is also his weakness.

At times, they say, it has led to the blurring of scientific advice and policy recommendation. His advocacy for nuclear and intervention on badgers are cases in point. There has also been concern that Sir David has become the story rather than the issue at hand.

Independent advice?

But can there be any such thing as independent scientific advice? Inevitably, the values of the chief scientist and those advising him come into play.

Although Sir David's close relationship with Tony Blair has served us well, particularly in times of crises, is it right that the chief scientific adviser should have so much influence? In which other field does one person have such close, unfettered access to the UK's most powerful person?

These are real concerns.

But, as flawed as it might be, a powerful scientific adviser is an essential counter-balance to the current system of consensus-led policymaking. In my experience, there are enough committees and stakeholders. There are enough people that keep their heads down and fight battles only for their corner.

Sir David is another in the long line of scientific advisers that has been independently minded. These people have told government exactly what they have thought. All of them have, at times, raised inconvenient truths. Sometimes, they may have overstepped the mark.

But better that than being yet another timid cog in a broken Whitehall machine.

I feel Sir David's lasting legacy has been to boost the role of succeeding scientific advisers. It is an endeavour that can be frustrating - fighting the long-term battle to utilise science to inform policymaking for the betterment of society and the planet.

Sir David has made a big difference, but the serious work of reform is how to bed down and build on the structural changes that he has begun.

Science needs to become the lifeblood of rational policymaking - and eventually there will be a time when we will not have to rely on chief scientific advisers.

RELATED INTERNET LINKS
Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills (DIUS)
Research Councils UK
University of Cambridge
The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites