Government Science Advice
This chapter reflects on the importance of expert, scientific opinion in government decision‐making and describes an ideal model of the role of expertise in government. It discusses some problems that can occur with government science advice, including stacking of government committees/panels, ignoring expert opinion, misinterpreting expert opinion, censoring expert opinion, and funding problems. To avoid these problems, the government must take steps to secure independent, open, and adequately funded scientific advice; one way to do so may be to increase its utilization of nonpartisan organizations, such as the National Academy of Science. When the government relies on advice from special panels/committees, it must ensure that appointments are based on scientific qualifications, not on politics or ideology, and an effort should be made to ensure that committees/panels have bipartisan, diverse representation. Deliberations should be open to the public so that people can understand their arguments, deliberations and assumptions. Politicians and government officials should not ignore, misinterpret, or censor scientific advice. To ensure that these recommendations are followed, it may be necessary to develop strategies, such as congressional oversight, for government decisions involving expert, scientific advice.
Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.
If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.