Chief Scientific Adviser Research Articles

Should we commit to eradicating malaria worldwide?

Bruno Moonen cannot accept the iniquitous alternative, but Clive Shiff believes the necessary huge investment could be better spent The World Health Organization,1 the Roll Back Malaria Partnership,2 and the...

Sir David John Cameron MacKay FRS. 22 April 1967 — 14 April 2016

David MacKay was a true polymath who made pioneering contributions to information theory, inference and learning algorithms. He was a founder of the modern approach to information theory, combining Bayesian inference with artificial neural network algorithms to allow rational decision making by computer. His major achievements include reliable computation with unreliable hardware, in particular in approaching the Shannon limit using enhancements of Gallager codes. He developed communication systems for the disabled, including the Dasher code which he made freely available. He was the author of the influential book Sustainable Energy: Without the Hot Air . In 2009 he was appointed Chief Scientific Advisor to the Department of Energy and Climate Change. From 2003 he was Professor of Natural Philosophy in the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge, and in 2013 he was appointed to the first Regius Professorship of Engineering in the Engineering Department of Cambridge University. He was appointed Knight Bachelor in the 2016 New Year's Honours List ‘for services to Scientific Advice in Government and Science Outreach’, but lost his battle with stomach cancer soon afterwards at the age of 48.

The Once and Future Great Lakes Country: An Ecological History by John L. Riley

Reviewed by: The Once and Future Great Lakes Country: An Ecological History by John L. Riley Theodore J. Karamanski John L. Riley, The Once and Future Great Lakes Country: An Ecological History. Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2013. 488pp. $39.95. John L. Riley has written an ambitious, thoughtful, and useful book that ranges from the ice ages to the impact of modern globalization on the Great Lakes region. Yet it is also an eccentric and uneven approach to a subject that is admittedly daunting in scope and complexity. Riley is a scientist with a diverse background in botany, geology, and ecology. This often allows him to bring to bear a range of knowledge and insights into environmental change that is beyond the grasp of most environmental historians. As the chief science advisor to the Nature Conservancy of Canada and a lifelong resident to Ontario he has an intimate knowledge of how wildlife populations and plant species have been shaped by human action in the only Canadian province situated on the Great Lakes. His book is less surehanded in dealing with the environmental history of the United States side of the lakes and with the political and economic policy history that has so influenced the way cities sprawl and invasive species spread. A strength of The Once and Future Great Lakes Country is its coverage of seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth century changes to the forests and wet lands that flank the basin of the inland seas. The discussion of First Nation and American Indian history in the region is excellent especially his chapter “Wilding the Land with War” that discusses the impact of the Iroquois wars and non-native disease on the flora and fauna of a broad swath of [End Page 113] the region from what had been Huronia and across the Michigan peninsula. Riley gives the reader the best available terrestrial wildlife history of the region. Unfortunately he sometimes seems so enamored with the accounts of early explorers and travelers that he indulges in long pages of descriptions of the plentitude of fish and game in contact period North America. Much of this description is not even of the Great Lakes region but of New England and the Gulf of St. Lawrence ranging out even to Newfoundland and the shores of Hudson’s Bay. Yet when Riley gets back to the Great Lakes region the reader is rewarded with a picture of a regional ecology that has ever been in flux. The Great Lakes region explored by Jean Nicolet in the 1630s was significantly different than that of Antoine de Lamothe Cadillac in the eighteenth century or John Muir in the nineteenth century. A touchstone for the volume is a small piece of former agricultural land in Mono Township, Ontario on elevated ground between Lake Ontario and Lake Huron. In his youth Riley used a timely inheritance to buy a rundown farm there. “The story of Nature writ large,” he writes, “on the wider landscape—of collapse and restoration—I see through the lens of a farm that is just like a thousand others” (xvi). He periodically returns the reader to this single piece of land to reflect on reforestation, the return of predators such as the cougar to the region, or the impact of beech-bark scale insects. The device establishes Riley’s passion for the landscape and rooted commitment to it. It also reflects something this reviewer regards as weakness of the book. The Once and Future Great Lakes Country is rooted in the land. The great inland seas that are the heart of the region and lend name and identity to the region take a decided backseat to Riley’s narration of changing vegetation, settlement, and wildlife. For example, Riley devotes considerable attention to the forests of the region. He knowledgably discusses market driven deforestation in the nineteenth century, the type of species that dominated the partial reforestation that occurred in the twentieth century, and the harrowing loss of native trees to Eurasian insects and fungi in the twenty-first century. Yet the reader is given only a superficial review of the impact of invasive species on the Great Lakes. The zebra mussel...

Help wanted: Canada begins search for chief science adviser

Help wanted: Canada begins search for chief science adviser

Take the long view.

At the end of a difficult year for evidence, Ian L. Boyd, a chief scientific adviser to the UK government, draws lessons for making research more relevant.

Exploring the scope of science advice: social sciences in the UK government

AbstractScience advice is normally seen in the context of physical science advice, and in particular in relation to the institutional position of “Chief Scientific Advisor” (CSA). This is true for the academic literature covering the science-policy interface, public administration, science and technology studies as well as most practitioner commentary. Very little literature exists on the provision of social science advice for public policy, insofar as this is framed in terms of individuals providing expertise within an institutional setting and role, as opposed to the provision of (social science) evidence within “evidence-based policy-making” or similar. This focus on the science advice has thus shaped the understanding of what a science advisor does, and what skills and expertise they are providing. Conventionally, this comprises an emphasis on significant knowledge in an area of expertise, a level of seniority and “eminence” to enable that knowledge to be influential and a degree of independence from those tasked with making policy decisions. Social science advice exists in the UK national policy-making context, but the mode of operation places a different emphasis and role on those providing such advice. I explore the nature of this role, using the conventional idea of the CSA as a point of departure to foreground points of similarity and difference. This exploration reveals a broader operating space for science advice than is conventionally understood and foregrounds particular tensions between relevance and influence, on the one hand, and scientific objectivity and independence, on the other. This article is published as part of a thematic collection dedicated to scientific advice to governments.

The science (and art) of medicine

The science (and art) of medicine

Charlotte Watts: from pure maths to HIV and gender-based violence

Appointed last October as Chief Scientific Adviser to the UK Government's Department for International Development (DFID), epidemiologist Charlotte Watts of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine (LSHTM) is, by training, a pure mathematician. Indeed, her PhD from the University of Warwick was titled “stochastic stability of diffeomorphisms”. Although a background in applied maths might have offered her a natural progression into statistics and epidemiology, the relevance to health of “diffeomorphisms” is harder to discern—although not, it seems, to Anne Mills, Professor of Health Economics and Policy at LSHTM. “Charlotte has great analytical powers”, she says. “The ability to conceptualise and theorise is not only important in theoretical work. It enables you to analyse issues, to get to the heart of what they're all about, and then think your way through to solutions.” In fact, Watts chose Warwick on account of its then Professor of Mathematics, Christopher Zeeman, no stranger to the application of his discipline. “By going to Warwick I was going to study with someone who was trying to make their maths useful”, Watts explains. Doing something socially useful had long been on her agenda. Its eventual realisation was to be in two fields: HIV and gender-based violence.

Sir Howard Dalton. 8 February 1944 — 12 January 2008

Howard Dalton was an outstanding microbiologist who, after his remarkably productive DPhil work in the Nitrogen Fixation Laboratory at the University of Sussex, and a short period in the USA, spent his research career at the University of Warwick. He devoted himself to the elucidation of the process of methane oxidation by bacteria that use this relatively inert gas as their sole source of carbon and energy. He discovered two completely novel multicomponent monooxygenase enzymes responsible for the initial oxidation of methane to methanol. He then continued to elucidate their functions, mechanisms, regulation and structures. Their wide substrate specificity led to his interest in using these and related enzymes for biocatalysis, biological transformations and bioremediation. While remaining at Warwick University he also acted as a highly appreciated Chief Scientific Advisor to the UK Government at the Department for the Environment and Rural Affairs (Defra). Howard was a highly effective scientist, a down-to-earth, self-effacing man, outgoing and witty, an inspirational colleague who above all else made science fun.

Communication of Science Advice to Government

There are various ways to construct good processes for soliciting and understanding science. Our critique of advisory models finds that a well-supported chief science advisor (CSA) best ensures the provision of deliberative, informal, and emergency advice to government. Alternatively, bias, increasingly manifest as science-based advocacy, can hinder communication, diminish credibility, and distort scientific evidence.

The policy worker and the professor: understanding how New Zealand policy workers utilise academic research

How do policy workers actually use academic research and advice? While there are several recent studies regarding this question from other Westminster jurisdictions (e.g. Talbot and Talbot, 2014, for the UK; Head et al., 2014, for Australia; Amara, Ouimet and Landry, 2004 and Ouimet et al., 2010, Canada), similar academic studies have been rare in New Zealand. So far, most of the local research in this field has been conducted by the prime minister’s chief science advisor and the Office of the Prime Minister’s Science Advisory Committee, with the particular instrumental purpose of improving the government’s ministries and agencies’ ‘use of evidence in both the formation and evaluation of policy’. However, none of these studies have asked how, and to what extent, policy workers in government are utilising academic research in their everyday work.

Wayne Cutfield: putting the spotlight on early life development

Wayne Cutfield: putting the spotlight on early life development

Nature's editor knighted for services to science

European Commission's former chief scientific adviser, Anne Glover, also among those honoured by the Queen.

Judging research quality to support evidence-informed environmental policy

In August 2005, PLoS Medicine published an essay by John Ioannidis called: ‘Why most published research findings are false’ [1]. Since then, the paper has been viewed over a million times possibly because of its provocative title, but probably because of growing concerns about the reliability of scientific publications and diminishing confidence in the peer review process to deliver effective quality control. Most recently such concerns have been supported by a number of high profile cases of publication retraction, for example the withdrawal of some statements from articles published in the British Medical Journal regarding the adverse side effects of Statins, a cholesterol-reducing drug [2]. A series of articles in the Lancet has suggested that some $200 billion (estimated to be 80% of the world’s spend on medical research) was wasted on ‘studies that were flawed in their design, redundant, never published or poorly reported’ [3]. Moreover, ‘when a prominent medical journal ran research past other experts in the field, it found that most of the reviewers failed to spot mistakes it had deliberately inserted into papers, even after being told they were being tested’ [4]. In the field of environmental studies too, concerns have been raised about ‘the limited effectiveness of peerreview as a quality-control mechanism’ [5]. The actual and perceived unreliability of scientific reports and papers is particularly problematic for governments’ scientific advisors who operate in the ‘messy’ world of policy making. Here even credible evidence is rarely the only influential factor [6] and policy (and evidence) contention, scientific uncertainty and even ignorance pose significant challenges. The Chief Scientific Advisor for the UK government’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has called ‘for an auditing process

Dr. A.P.J Abdul Kalam-"A Man Beyond Science".

Dear Sir, The extraordinary charismatic personality of Dr. Kalam has sensitized every individual in our nation. His reach to the people was beyond the bar of caste, color and creed. An ordinary man, who came from a humble family of Rameswaram, Tamil Nadu, India, reached to the highest national rank by being the 11th President in Indian Republic. He has been a very sincere worker of his field and was a continuous source of inspiration for all generation of people. Among the awards which he deservingly earned in his lifetime, few of them include Padambhushan (1981), Padma Vibushan (1990), Bharat Ratna (1997) King Charles Medal-II (2007) and many more. However, the greatest award was the respect he commanded among common man and specially youth for whom he is an unyielding source of inspiration. His speeches and his perspective towards “Science and its Utilization for People” are a worth beyond words. He graduated from Madras Institute of Technology in aerospace engineering and later remained associated with Defense Research and Development Organization for nearly 40 years. He started his career with a project of developing a small helicopter for Indian army. Dr Kalam developed India’s first indigenous Satellite Launch Vehicle (SLV-3) which successfully placed the satellite, Rohini in the near orbit of earth in July 1980 and made India an exclusive member of Space Club. Subsequently, he played important role in development of missiles like Agni and Prithvi which made India a self sufficient in its Defense Power. He was called as “Missile Man” for his contribution in missiles development. Dr Kalam has played a pivotal role as Chief scientific Advisor to Prime Minister between July 1992 to December 1999, it was during this time that “Pokhran-II” the nuclear test was conducted. His hard work in this field made India a Nuclear Power. Dr Kalam had significant contributions to medical science which are less discussed in Indian media and literature. He advocated, the role of biotechnology in medical science research, emphasized the use of science and technology for the benefit of common man. India’s first indigenous low cost cardiac stent was developed by him in collaboration with Dr. Somaraju Bhupathiraju known as Kalam-Raju stent during 1994 – 1996. It reduced the cost of stents by 1/4th compared to prevailing market rate. Approximately 2000 Kalam-Raju cardiac stent has been fitted to many needy patients and showed the path of affordable health care [1]. Although, the medical field has progressed to drug eluting stents, this invention was a landmark in its time. In 2012, they developed a tablet computer for purpose of rural health care service, which was named the ‘Kalam-Raju tablet’. One of his great achievement was the development of light weight calipers for polio affected children by using carbon-carbon and carbon-polymer materials (glass-filled polypropylene which are used in missiles) during 1995 – 1996, thus reducing weight of the caliper to 1/10th of the original weight. Over 50,000 children were benefitted with these calipers which reduced their pain significantly, while walking. Throughout his life, he took up the mission to ignite and inspire young minds towards national spirit by meeting school students across the country. He has also written many thought provoking and inspirational books such as “ Wings of Fire”, “ Ignited Minds” and “ India 2020”, which has become house hold names with youth of India. During the last decade, Dr. Kalam has addressed over five million youth below the age of 17 and inspired them to become an active participant of India Vision 2020. He had addressed several Children Science Congresses across the country. Though, everyone who is born has to leave for the heavenly abode, but Dr. Kalam has left the legacy of his scientific achievements, thoughts and teachings as a source of inspiration for generation to come in future India and the world. Today, we really are gratefull to the almighty for giving us the opportunity to live in an era when we could share the sunlight with such a great personality. May his soul rest in peace.

Political Figures European Commission President Axes Science Adviser Position

The European Commission’s new president, Jean-Claude Juncker, has eliminated the post of chief science adviser to the commission, the executive branch of the European Union. But Juncker hasn’t yet established an alternative mechanism for getting science advice, which has left many wondering how the commission will ensure that science backs its policy decisions. Anne Glover, a molecular biologist who held the science adviser’s job since it was created in 2012, announced in an e-mail last week that her position no longer exists. She will remain on the payroll of the European Commission until next year. Although government science advisers are common in the U.S. and U.K., most European countries do not have an equivalent and instead rely on advisory committees or scientific societies. “President Juncker now needs to clarify with urgency what alternative structures for scientific advice he plans to put in place,” says James Wilsdon, a professor of science ...

EU eliminates chief science adviser position

EU eliminates chief science adviser position

Better Risk Regulation Governance for a Stronger Europe

The start of a new European Commission represents a unique opportunity to build on successful regulatory reforms and to create the institutional architecture needed to ensure that high quality scientific evidence is used effectively in EU decision–making. The appointment by President Barroso of a Chief Scientific Adviser (CSA) in 2011 constituted an important springboard in this respect. The CSA Office has made a considerable and positive difference to the regulatory environment. This article argues for embedding the CSA Office into the institutional and procedural arrangements of the Commission by re–defining its organisational role and responsibilities as well as the resources allocated to it. The institutionalisation of the CSA Office and the creation of a fully–fledged risk regulation regime would provide a robust element of the EU's response to the demands for better governance by its citizens, as expressed in the recent European elections.

Better Use of Science for Better EU Regulation

Risk regulation is a major task of the EU. In this context, scientific knowledge and advice is critical to the preparation, formulation, legislation and later revision of EU risk regulation. However and with some notable exceptions (e.g. some EU Agencies, DG SANCO), there seems to be no systematic view, let alone, organisation for the ‘use of science’ for EU policy–making. It is in this light that the new function of Chief Scientific Advisor (CSA) to the President of the European Commission can best be appreciated. The authors first sketch how ‘science’ is used in the EU regulatory regime and what is or has become problematic about it. Subsequently, an informal SWOT analysis of the ‘use of science’ for EU policy is conducted. The contribution ends with an attempt to evaluate the CSA's accomplishments to date and how it can contribute to improving EU regulation. This is followed by a few recommendations on how the role of the CSA could be strengthened in the near future.

The Past, Present and Future of the Chief Scientific Advisor

At the end of August 2014, scientists and policymakers from forty-eight countries gathered at the Heritage Hotel in Auckland, New Zealand to debate the science and art of scientific advice. Jointly hosted by Sir Peter Gluckman, chief scientific advisor to the PrimeMinister of NewZealand, and the International Council for Science (ICSU), the Auckland summit was the largest ever meeting of its kind, attracting science advisors, advisory bodies and academic experts fromAlbania to Zimbabwe, and a host of countries in between.Over two days of intense discussion, participants debated structures and methods for the provision of scientific advice in emergency situations, across national and disciplinary boundaries, and on contested topics,where science, values and politics collide. The meeting ended with a call to strengthen collaboration between advisory systems, an agreement to formalize the network, and a commitment tomeet again in 2016. As Sir Peter Gluckman said afterwards: “Our goal was to start a global conversation on the practices and challenges of conveying science advice to governments…The meeting has highlighted a real thirst among practitioners to share models and lessons.”