WRITTEN ON January 26th, 2006 BY William Heath AND STORED IN Uncategorized

Generally I’d vote for anyone who delivers the conditions for peace and low taxes. But last year I decided three “indicator” policies for when I vote next election:

1. an ID/e-gov policy which reflects an agenda of respect for British people
2. a drugs policy less expensive and harmful than the present one
3. a cheaper and more effective public sector

For those you need rational political decisions of the sort Sir Humphrey would descibe as “courageous”. It means a readiness to accept evidence and act on it. So you can imagine how delighted I am that the the Parliamentary council on science and technology (CST) has kicked off a most excellent enquiry about government use of scientific evidence, based on two out of my three criteria.

NEW INQUIRY

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE, RISK AND EVIDENCE: HOW GOVERNMENT HANDLES THEM

The Science and Technology Committee agreed, at its meeting today, that it would hold an inquiry to examine the way in which the Government obtains and uses scientific advice in the development of policy.

The inquiry will focus upon the mechanisms in place for the use of scientific advice (including the social sciences) and the way in which the guidelines governing the use of such advice is being applied in practice across Government. It will test the extent to which policies are “evidence-based”.

The Committee will carry out this inquiry by addressing the questions below in a series of case studies.

The first three case studies to be addressed are:

1. The technologies supporting the Government’s proposals for identity cards
2. The classification of illegal drugs
3. The use of MRI equipment: the EU Physical Agents (Electromagnetic Fields) Directive