A senior MP has criticised the quality of scientific advice being given to ministers across government and called on the Cabinet Office to intervene.
Andrew Miller, the chair of the House of Commons science and technology committee, said scientific advice to ministers had been “increasingly diluted” since the last general election and threatened to harm government policymaking.
He said that chief scientific adviser jobs had been left vacant at several government departments, or never even created, despite strong recommendations from the House of Lords and numerous experts.
Departmental chief scientists are meant to ensure that robust evidence lies at the core of decision-making within and across government. But at least four departments have failed to appoint well-qualified and independent advisers, Miller said.
In a letter sent to Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, Miller warned that scientific advice within government departments had been steadily eroded during the coalition’s tenure.
“This crucial role is not being given the respect that it deserves and is becoming increasingly diluted,” the letter states.
The Treasury appointed its first chief scientific adviser in 2011, but the job went to the department’s chief microeconomist, James Richardson, who took the position on top of his existing role. Though not breaking any rules, the letter states: “It does not smack of an appetite for the independent advice and challenge people expect of a chief scientific adviser.”
Miller takes further issue with the Department for Education, which recently appointed Tim Leunig, another economist, as its chief scientific adviser. Leunig had applied for a job as chief analyst but was considered for the chief scientist job too after ticking a box to declare his interest on the application form.
Worse, said Miller, Leunig was a former policy adviser at the department where he is now required to provide independent scientific advice. “His previous role as a senior ministerial policy adviser would cast doubt on his ability to provide truly independent challenge and advice,” the letter states.
Despite protests from some of the most respected scientific organisations in the country, the Department for Education has refused to intervene in Ofqual’s move to axe practicals from A-levels, or its plans to do the same for GCSEs. “We have this hugely important issue and someone as the chief scientist in the department who is not qualified to advise on the subject,” Miller told the Guardian.
The Department of Transport has been without a chief scientific adviser since May 2014, while the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has never appointed anyone to the role.
The lack of scientific advice meant there was no one to offer independent scrutiny as policies were developed, Miller said. “DCMS are dealing with important issues to do with the radio spectrum and broadband internet, major issues on health and drugs aspects of sport, issues around art conservation and more,” Miller told the Guardian. “These are important areas that need proper scientific advice.”
The criticism comes less than a month after the government published its well-received science and innovation strategy, which stated that “the best policymaking requires the best analysis and evidence.” The departmental chief scientists advise Sir Mark Walport, the government’s chief scientist.
Miller said that it was unclear whether departmental chief scientist positions had been left vacant due to “end-of-term laziness” or whether the degrading of scientific advice from departments was part of an intentional strategy.
