CHAPTER 5: Conclusions and Recommendations
Functions and recruitment of
Chief Scientific Advisers
CROSS DEPARTMENTAL VARIATION IN
MANAGEMENT OF SCIENCE
122. Each department has a different organisational
structure and arrangement for the management of science: some
departments manage research and evidence gathering in a central
team, others manage it within policy programmes. This variation
in arrangements for the management of science across departments,
alongside the different remit of each department, has led us to
conclude that some flexibility should be afforded to departments
to allow them to tailor the CSA post to their individual needs
(paragraph 27).
123. There are a number of "essential characteristics"
which we have concluded must be present, irrespective of a department's
structure and science management arrangements, if a CSA is to
discharge his or her core functions effectively. These include
personal characteristics of a CSA (see Recommendation 1 below)
and characteristics of the institutional arrangements in relation
to the post itself (see Recommendations in Chapters 3 and 4 below)
(paragraph 28).
ESSENTIAL PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS
OF CSAS
124. The primary essential characteristic
of all CSAs is that they must have standing and authority within
the scientific community, nationally and internationally. This
will, amongst other things, help ensure that the CSA is able to
access a wide range of expertise. In addition, a CSA should be
able to demonstrate the following:
- an ability to engage in effective dialogue
with internal and external stakeholders, including academia, industry
and the wider public;
- an ability to work in and manage a multi-disciplinary
team;
- an understanding of the policy environment;
- an ability to evaluate evidence and to weigh
up conflicting evidence from a wide range of disciplines; and
- an understanding of project delivery.
We recommend that all departmental recruitment
processes for CSAs should be designed to ensure that candidates
selected possess these characteristics (paragraph 37). (Recommendation 1)
IMPORTANCE OF EXTERNAL RECRUITMENT
125. We considered whether recruitment
of a candidate who is able to demonstrate the characteristics
described in Recommendation 1 necessarily excludes internal candidates
and entails appointment of either an external candidate or a candidate
with a substantial and recent background based outside the civil
service. We have concluded that it does and recommend accordingly
(paragraph 45). (Recommendation 2)
TERMS AND CONDITIONS
126. We recommend that:
(a) Subject to paragraph (b) below, CSAs
should be employed by their departments on a part-time basis to
afford them the opportunity to maintain their links with academia,
or industry, or both.
(b) Exceptionally, some CSAs are required
to undertake major management or professional functions. In these
circumstances it is likely that their appointments will need to
be full-time. None the less, provision should be made to enable
them to maintain their links with academia, or industry, or both.
(c) CSAs ought to work exclusively in their
role as CSA for the equivalent of at least three days a week.
(d) CSAs should be appointed for a three
year period, with the possibility of renewal (paragraph 54). (Recommendation 3)
127. There are, at present, a small number of
CSAs who combine their role as CSA with other significant departmental
roles (see paragraph 47). Having concluded that CSAs should work
at least three days a week exclusively in their capacity as CSA,
we question whether combining such significant roles in this way
can be appropriate. In raising this issue, we mean no criticism
at all of the current incumbents. We recommend, however, that
the GCSA and Head of the Civil Service, at the earliest opportunity,
review these arrangements in consultation with the relevant Secretaries
of State and departmental Permanent Secretaries (paragraph 55).
(Recommendation 4)
RECRUITMENT PANEL
128. We recommend that the GCSA (as Head of
Profession for Science and Engineering across government) should
sit on all CSA interview panels. We also recommend that an external
scientist should sit on these panels (paragraph 57). (Recommendation
5)
Engagement with the policy process
and departmental evidence quality assurance
ENGAGEMENT WITH THE POLICY PROCESS
129. We share the view of those witnesses
who argued that CSAs should be involved early and throughout the
policy process. CSA involvement in the policy submission sign-off
chain would be a useful method for ensuring that this happened.
We recommend therefore that in all departments CSAs should be
consulted by policy officials early and throughout the policy
process, and that all CSAs form part of the departmental policy
submission sign-off chain (paragraph 64). (Recommendation 6)
ACCESS TO MINISTERS
130. We recommend that CSAs should have a
right of direct access to ministers to ensure that they can challenge
effectively at the highest level. By direct access we mean that
CSAs should be able to see ministers at the prompting of the CSA
and as often as judged necessary by the CSA (paragraph 68). (Recommendation 7)
GUIDELINES IN THE EVENT OF DISAGREEMENT
131. In order to assist CSAs in expressing
disagreement with policy decisions, we recommend that a set of
guidelines for CSAs be developed by the GCSA and Head of the Civil
Service, similar in content and aim to The Principles of
Scientific Advice to Government and The GCSA's Guidelines
on the Use of Scientific and Engineering Advice in Policy Making.
These guidelines should contain a protocol for CSAs to follow
in circumstances where they disagree with ministers or civil servants
regarding a departmental policy decision (paragraph 73). (Recommendation 8)
GRADING
132. We recommend that all CSAs should be
graded at either Permanent Secretary level or the level immediately
below Permanent Secretary (that is, Director General or departmental
equivalent) to ensure that they have the authority and ability
to work across the whole department (paragraph 76). (Recommendation 9)
133. The CSA post in the MoD has been downgraded
from Permanent Secretary level to Director General (the equivalent
in military terms of a downgrade from a four star to a three star
post). Whilst we have concluded that, generally, a CSA can discharge
his or her functions effectively at Director General level (see
Recommendation 9), we share the view of a number of witnesses
that, in the particular circumstances of the MoD, the re-grading
is likely to make it more difficult for the CSA to exercise influence
both within the department and in the broader scientific and commercial
communities (paragraph 78).
MEMBERSHIP OF DEPARTMENTAL BOARDS
134. We recommend that, in addition to membership
of key departmental committees, the post of CSA should carry with
it a seat on the departmental Board on the grounds that membership
would:
- enable oversight of the department and knowledge
of its future plans;
- provide an opportunity to challenge policy
with evidence;
- provide a mechanism to assure the use of scientific
evidence across their department; and
- give CSAs the authority to work across the
department (paragraph 86). (Recommendation 10)
Support and resources for CSAs
RESEARCH SPEND
135. We recommend that all CSAs are allocated
a dedicated, ring-fenced fund by their departments to enable them,
where they judge necessary, to commission research or to convene
groups of experts. The size of the fund should be determined in
consultation with the GCSA and should be evaluated as part of
the proposed annual assessments by the GCSA (see Recommendation
16 below) (paragraph 91). (Recommendation 11)
136. CSAs have a valuable contribution to
make to the process for prioritising and allocating research spend.
We recommend therefore that CSAs, where they do not manage departmental
research spend, should have a formal role in decision making about
departmental research spend (paragraph 96). (Recommendation 12)
STAFFING
137. We recommend that each department should
evaluate whether the departmental CSA has adequate staff to give
the CSA the capacity to discharge his or her functions effectively.
The adequacy of the staff provision for each CSA should form part
of the proposed annual assessments by the GCSA (see Recommendation
16 below) (paragraph 98). (Recommendation 13)
LINKS WITH ACADEMIES AND INDUSTRY
138. We commend CSAs and the Chief Scientific
Advisers Committee (CSAC), under the leadership of Professor Sir John
Beddington, for building effective working relationships with
the Academies and encourage them to continue building on these
relationships. The relationship between CSAC and industry is also
important. We recommend that, as a priority, CSAC should develop
similar links with industry (paragraph 101). (Recommendation 14)
CSAC AND CROSS-DEPARTMENTAL COLLABORATION
139. We commend Professor Sir John
Beddington and CSAC for their cross-departmental work to date.
We would encourage the GCSA, as part of his or her oversight of
scientific advice to government, to take steps to ensure that
the full range of expertise within CSAC is used effectively, to
continue to promote cross-departmental collaboration through CSAs,
and to inform the scientific community, and wider public, of these
efforts (paragraph 104).
ENGINEERING
140. We welcome the GSCA's commitment to promote
engagement with the engineering community, and note with approval
that the GCSA is Head of both the Science and Engineering Profession.
We also welcome the recent appointment of engineers to the post
of CSAs to BIS and DfT (paragraph 107).
CHIEF SOCIAL SCIENCE ADVISER
141. We welcome the Government's positive,
albeit tentative, response to our recent recommendation in our
report on behaviour change that they should appoint a Chief Social
Science Adviser. Given the all-pervasive importance of social
science advice to policy making in all departments, we remain
of the view that at the earliest opportunity the Government should
appoint a Chief Social Scientist, reporting to the GCSA, to ensure
the provision of robust and independent social scientific advice.
The Chief Social Science Adviser should meet the same criteria
we propose for CSAs in Recommendation 1 (paragraph 114). (Recommendation 15)
SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY BODIES
142. We recommend that the GCSA, GO Science
and the Head of the Civil Service undertake an evaluation of departmental
scientific advisory bodies with overarching responsibility (described
in paragraph 102), consider whether they offer the most effective
mechanisms for external critique and review of departmental use
of science, and make proposals for improvement (paragraph 116).
(Recommendation 16)
143. We consider the chairmanship of the Home
Office Scientific Advisory Committee (HOSAC) by the departmental
Permanent Secretary to be inappropriate. We recommend that, instead,
the chairman should be an external, expert appointee (paragraph
116). (Recommendation 17)
DEPARTMENTAL PERFORMANCE
144. We recommend that departments should
publish follow-up reports on steps they have taken to address
issues identified in SEA reviews (paragraph 117). (Recommendation 18)
ANNUAL PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT BY
THE GCSA
145. We recommend that the GCSA should undertake
annual assessments of the performance of CSAs, to feed into the
annual appraisal report undertaken by the Permanent Secretary.
We recommend that the assessments should cover the following:
- development and maintenance of effective links
by the CSA with the relevant science and industrial communities;
- frequency and efficacy of CSA engagement with
the policy process;
- CSA efforts to promote the value of the use
of quality scientific evidence across his or her department;
- contribution of the CSA to the work of CSAC
and consultation with other CSAs on relevant issues;
- sufficiency of CSA's staff and budget;
- the CSA's work to provide scrutiny of departmental
research budgets; and
- external critique offered to the CSA's work
(paragraph 121). (Recommendation 19)
| 
