Review of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee

Abstract

In his News item (Nov 9, p 1487),1Glass N UK charity to involve public in decision making for cancer research priorities.Lancet. 2002; 360: 1487Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar Nigel Glass discusses the crisis of public confidence in medical research and science in Britain. He cites examples of how various research bodies have indicated the need to allow wider public consultation and participation and to embrace a more transparent way of working. The article refers to the ongoing review of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC),2Review of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee.http://www.seac.gov.uk/review.htmGoogle Scholar the contextual implication being that the review was instigated in reaction to the crisis of public confidence in science.The review of SEAC is in fact a routine obligation. The committee was last reviewed in 1997, and non-departmental government bodies (such as SEAC) are normally reviewed every 5 years. Regular reviews of important advisory committees are necessary to ensure the functions they provide are of high quality and continue to meet the needs of government.The terms of reference for the 2002 review of SEAC are: “to examine the need for the Committee, its role, methods, operation and effectiveness; including its terms of reference and composition, the openness and transparency of its procedures and the relationships between the Committee, the commissioning departments and other bodies with related responsibilities, including the EU Scientific Steering Committee”.The decline in public trust in scientific expertise is widely accepted, and the single most important factor in increasing public trust is clearly openness. However, openness is not simply about making information available, but also about giving a transparent account of the scientific decision-making process.In line with the Office of Science and Technology's code of practice, and the recommendations made in the Food Standards Agency's review of Scientific Advisory Committees, SEAC's meetings are “open”, allowing the public to observe the scientific decision-making process in action. In his News item (Nov 9, p 1487),1Glass N UK charity to involve public in decision making for cancer research priorities.Lancet. 2002; 360: 1487Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Google Scholar Nigel Glass discusses the crisis of public confidence in medical research and science in Britain. He cites examples of how various research bodies have indicated the need to allow wider public consultation and participation and to embrace a more transparent way of working. The article refers to the ongoing review of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee (SEAC),2Review of the Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee.http://www.seac.gov.uk/review.htmGoogle Scholar the contextual implication being that the review was instigated in reaction to the crisis of public confidence in science. The review of SEAC is in fact a routine obligation. The committee was last reviewed in 1997, and non-departmental government bodies (such as SEAC) are normally reviewed every 5 years. Regular reviews of important advisory committees are necessary to ensure the functions they provide are of high quality and continue to meet the needs of government. The terms of reference for the 2002 review of SEAC are: “to examine the need for the Committee, its role, methods, operation and effectiveness; including its terms of reference and composition, the openness and transparency of its procedures and the relationships between the Committee, the commissioning departments and other bodies with related responsibilities, including the EU Scientific Steering Committee”. The decline in public trust in scientific expertise is widely accepted, and the single most important factor in increasing public trust is clearly openness. However, openness is not simply about making information available, but also about giving a transparent account of the scientific decision-making process. In line with the Office of Science and Technology's code of practice, and the recommendations made in the Food Standards Agency's review of Scientific Advisory Committees, SEAC's meetings are “open”, allowing the public to observe the scientific decision-making process in action.