SUBJECT: Science for better governance
AUTHOR: Martin Sharman
DATE: 16th April 2003

KEYWORDS: Role of science, uncertainty, precautionary principle.

SUMMARY: Policy makers need answers now, to questions that scientists are in (at least) two minds about. How should we approach this all-too-frequent dilemma?

Although it is not on the agenda, it seems to me that there is a key issue that this conference might want to address, which is how science contributes to governance, in day-to-day exchanges.

Policy-makers work on a different time scale from scientists. Policy-makers rarely have the luxury to look several years ahead for a possible solution to a problem - they very often need something that they can implement today (or tomorrow at the latest). Their decisions track phenomena (public pressure, drafts of documents, instructions from hierarchy, questions from parliament) in which change can be observed in days or weeks - and perhaps even hours. This often means a "quick and dirty" partial solution, perhaps based only on very shaky scientific observations. Biodiversity scientists, on the other hand, typically work to the rhythm of multi-annual funding and project cycles, as they track hugely complex phenomena whose changes may sometimes be confirmed only after many years - and perhaps decades or more.

Let us suppose that the EPBRS manages to work out an excellent strategy for biodiversity research. Good though the programme may be, nobody can possibly predict all policy requirements. So even if some policies are based on solid science, some will always be based on unsatisfactory evidence. This is in effect what the precautionary principle states.

Policy makers are used to working in a world of ambiguity and incomplete information. They can easily accept that sometimes the advice they receive, even from the best scientists in the world, is not much better than an educated guess. It is much more difficult psychologically for scientists, who seek to reduce ambiguity as much as possible and who balance probabilities as a profession, to provide advice from a knowledge base that consists of more doubts than facts.

Here is my question to you, dear reader: how might scientists properly handle responses to requests for advice when scientific knowledge is lacking? Should they say "here is the best guess I have at the moment, here are my doubts about my guess, and here is the costed description and schedule of work needed to provide a better-substantiated reply in 10 years' time"? Can we work out a "best practice" manual to help scientists to RASKLs? (A new acronym: of course it means "request for advice when scientific knowledge is lacking".)

A contribution by:

Martin Sharman
European Commission
LX46 2/74
B-1049 Brussels, Belgium
Research DG DI-4 Biodiversity and Ecosystems
Geographic address: Rue Luxembourg 46