Scientific Advisory Committees at the World Health Organization: A Qualitative Study of How Their Design Affects Quality, Relevance, and Legitimacy.

Unni Gopinathan,Steven J. Hoffman,Trygve Ottersen

doi:10.1002/gch2.201700074

Abstract

Governments and international organizations frequently convene scientific advisory committees (SACs) to support decision‐making with scientific advice. In this study, thematic analysis of interviews with 35 senior WHO staff identified five main themes characterizing WHO's experience with designing SACs to ensure quality, relevance, and legitimacy of scientific advice. First, in addition to technical matters, SACs are established to serve broader strategic objectives, including consensus building to promote high‐level political messages. Second, for SACs to be fully independent, they must have autonomy from the institutions convening or funding them, from the institutions from where SAC members are recruited, and from the institutions to whom the advice is directed. Third, since choices affecting quality, relevance, and legitimacy are closely linked, designing SACs often require trade‐offs among these three attributes. Fourth, staff supporting SACs need to balance between safeguarding SACs from external influence and being receptive to the external political environment. Fifth, the design of SACs need to balance the involvement of stakeholders with the power to act on recommendations against the need to protect the independence and integrity of the scientific process. Overall, this study highlights key choices conveners of SACs must make when seeking to promote quality, relevance, and legitimacy of scientific advice.

Highlights

Policymakers at all levels of decisionmaking commission scientific advice to inform their decisions
Interviewees described that the primary motivation for convening scientific advisory committees (SACs) was to deliver on World Health Organization (WHO)’s normative functions and respond to member states’ technical needs by producing credible scientific assessments on health issues
Interviewees expressed that the agency would “decide to establish a committee when we believe there is a topic at stake that requires more in-depth analysis, more in-depth assessment, in-depth recommendations” and that the need for this would be identified by talking to countries and other partners, and understanding “what’s not been addressed in a serious way” (WHO interviewee 22)

Summary

Introduction

Policymakers at all levels of decisionmaking commission scientific advice to inform their decisions. In the context of this project, we are defining SACs as: “(a) a group of individuals with some kind of expertise (b) that provides advice to internal or external decision-makers (c) based on evidence from the natural or social sciences.”. This would include most entities called “scientific advisory committees,” “expert committees,” “study groups,” “review panels,” “commissions,” etc., but not “research ethics boards” or “governing bodies.”. In the context of this project, we are defining SACs as: “(a) a group of individuals with some kind of expertise (b) that provides advice to internal or external decision-makers (c) based on evidence from the natural or social sciences.” This would include most entities called “scientific advisory committees,” “expert committees,” “study groups,” “review panels,” “commissions,” etc., but not “research ethics boards” or “governing bodies.” Questions

Objectives

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion