Social responsibility of science and technology

11 December, Lisbon

European Commission's Group of

#SAMGroup_EU

Conference on “Ethics, Science and Society: Challenges for BioPolitics”

Chief Scientific Advisors

Pearl Dykstra

Ivory tower??

Increasing recognition

(spurred by citizen

involvement, funding

organizations,

governments) that

academics have a social

responsibility

Impact of science on society through

• Teaching

• Commercialization

• Evidence for policy and practice

• Public engagement

Yes, there is fake news

But there is also an appreciation of scientific evidence

Engagement with media (strategies for scientists)

Disseminating scientific findings to the general public is crucial, and do it with integrity• Stick to the evidence• Do not speak about topics outside your own area of

expertise• Do not reveal not-yet published findings (peer review as

quality control, publication enabling replicability)

Roles of the scientist vis-à-vis practitioner and policymaker

Sense maker• Presents what is known and what is not

known• Recognizes and minimizes biasesEngineer • Demonstrates the effectiveness of

solutions• Identifies the need for tailored solutionsCo-developer• Responds to questions and requests for

evidence• Identifies upcoming evidence needs

2007

These roles require a solid scientific evidence base

• Synthesis relies on the availability of high-quality primary research relevant to the policy question

• Poor-quality evidence severely limits the utility of the resulting synthesis evidence

June 2018

Aligning science and policy is a well-known challengeWhat can individual researchers do?

Consider • what have you discovered?• why it is important? • what have you done about your discovery?

Mark Ferguson, Nature, 27 October 2016, 538, p. 455

Building links with policymakers requires patience and resources, so work with dedicated organizations, such asPublic Policy Exchange (http://www.publicpolicyexchange.co.uk)

Aligning science and policy is a well-known challengeWhat can the academic community do?

“What you measure is what you get” (Mark Ferguson, Nature, 27 October 2016, 538, p. 455)

So, value impact outputs as high-quality research endeavors in their own right

Support scientists to engage with policy makers and practitioners, e.g. • by setting up dedicated policy-impact units staffed by

professionals who are adept at navigating policy and academia

• provide space to scientists to talk about how to do impactful research

Aligning science and policy is a well-known challengeWhat can the other parties do?

The public sector needs consistently to cite the academic references that have informed a policy decision

Publishers could champion evidence synthesis articles as high-quality research in their own right

(Royal Society / Academy of Medical Sciences, Evidence synthesis for policy, 2018)

European Commission’s Group of Chief Scientific Advisors

How do we work?

Proposals for Policy

or Legislation

Group of Chief Scientific Advisors Scientific Advice

Better Policy making and Legislation

Outcome for citizens

13

Janusz BujnickiBiology

(Poland)

Pearl DykstraSociology

(Netherlands)

Elvira FortunatoMaterials Science

(Portugal)

Nicole GrobertChemistry

(UK)

Rolf-Dieter HeuerPhysics

(Germany)

Carina KeskitaloPolitical Sciences

(Sweden)

Sir Paul NurseGenetics

(UK)

Consultation of the scientific

community and stakeholders

Scoping of

Policy landscape by unit in Brussels

Consortium of European

and National Academies

(SAPEA)Group of Chief

Scientific Advisors

+

Wrapping up

Most “work”: where science meets values

Two kinds of polarized situations (e.g., GMO, climate change, migration)• science versus public• where science is a mess

Important to acknowledge that • science is not value-free (what to study, what methods

to use, what is considered sufficient evidence, what to finance)

• the scientific approach is designed to limit (or identify and mitigate) the influence of values

• there is no better alternative than the scientific approach

2009

A final word

The academic community has a duty to ensure

that research evidence is brought to bear on

legislation to keep our democracies healthy.

Chris Tyler, Nature, 7 December, 2017, p. 7

SCIENTIFIC ADVICE MECHANISM (SAM)

Established in 2015Group of Chief Scientific

Advisors

Working closely with

5 European Academy NetworksFellows from over 100 academiesin 40 countries across Europe

Principles of scientific integrity and transparency

members act in their personal capacity, independent of

institutional or political interests

members must inform the chair of any potential conflict of interest

Members are contractually bound to

be impartial

Members were selected with the help of an Identification Committee composed of independent experts.

Elect its own chair, sets its own agenda and adopts its own rules of procedures.

Appointed for amaximum of 5 years.

SAM uses only publicly available evidence

Both the science advice and the process for evidence

gathering are public

Principles of scientific integrity and transparency

Microplastic Pollution – Scientific perspectives and its

impacts

Making sense of science under conditions of complexity

and uncertainty

Transforming the Future of Ageing

PROACTIVE: NEW TOPICS

Thank you

ec.europa.eu/research/sam

#SAMGroup_EU

Questions to be addressed

• What is the European and worldwide scientific basis for improving the measurement of light vehicle CO2 emissions and fuel consumption in order to produce values closer to average real-world data?

• Which approaches might be considered, what are their strengths and weaknesses, also in terms of reliability and transparency, and what additional scientific and analytical work would be needed?

Closing the gap between light-duty vehicle real-world CO2 emissions and laboratory testing

Closing the gap between light-duty vehicle real-world CO2 emissions and laboratory testing

Impact

Nov. 2017's - EC legislative proposal on CO2 emission standards for passenger cars and new light commercial vehicles followed several recommendations, including to collect, publish, and monitor real world fuel consumption data to enable the comparison of laboratory and on-the-road tests.

Following request of the Vice President of the European Commission, Andrus Ansip, in January 2016, to provide scientific advice that would inform the revision of the EU’s cybersecurity strategy, as well as the further development of the Digital Single Market strategy

Cybersecurity in the European Digital Single Market

Cybersecurity in the European Digital Single Market

• Takes account of other reputable independent reports in the field, and presents a European view on cybersecurity in the Digital Single Market directed towards EU-level policy makers.

• Ten recommendations that aim to inform a revised cybersecurity policy which enables a strong and growing Digital Single Market

• Premised on the principle that security, innovation, citizen participation and informed choice go hand in hand with protecting fundamental rights and European values.

• Among else, calls for cryptographic standards in the EU to reach and remain at state-of-the-art levels, a systems approach with security and privacy by design and by default, responsible disclosure and repair of vulnerabilities, citizens' engagement and user choice, development of EU cybersecurity industry, sharing of evidence and best practices, between EU member states, train professionals and have a duty of care principle for manufacturers vis a vis the consumers.

Cybersecurity in the European Digital Single Market

Impact

September 2017's joint European Commission and High Representatives Communication on "Resilience, Deterrence and Defence: Building strong cybersecurity for the EU" states that the EU approach to cybersecurity is substantiated by the Group of Chief Scientific opinion on the subject.

Request included in the minutes of the second plenary meeting of the HLG/GCSA.16-17 March 2016

Explanatory note on scientific advice for the regulatory assessment of glyphosate in plant protection products

Main statements

• Does not take a position on the carcinogenic hazard potential of glyphosate

• Does explain reasons for different answers to apparently same question by two different agencies

• Observes: both EFSA and WHO-IARC deliver a carcinogenicity hazard assessment for glyphosate, but the scope and purpose of the EFSA Conclusions are different from those of the WHO-IARC Monograph

• Reasons include: assessment of glyphosate alone vs. glyphosate and glyphosate based formulations; examination of different data and different interpretations and analysis of data; different classification schemes

• Describes: assessment of glyphosate by other regulatory authorities

Explanatory note on scientific advice for the regulatory assessment of glyphosate in plant protection products

• A comprehensive comparison of conventional breeding techniques (CBT), established techniques of genetic modification (ETGM) and new breeding techniques (NBT), including gene editing, used in agriculture;

• Purely scientific point of view;

New techniques in agricultural biotechnology

Impact

• Centre-piece of EC conference, "Modern biotechnologies in agriculture – paving the way for responsible innovation";

• Cited by EC Legal Service in the formulation of the EC position on ECJ case concerning new techniques of mutagenesis

New techniques in agricultural biotechnology

Main findings:• NBT are generally more precise and have less unintended effects than

CBT or ETGM;• Safety assessments can only be done case-by-case;• NBTs are very diverse, generating products with or without exogenous

DNA;• Detection of changes introduced by any technique is difficult without

prior knowledge;• Certain attribution of changes to a particular technique is generally

impossible;

Question to be addressedHow can more food and biomass be obtained from the oceans in a way that does not deprive future generations of their benefits?

Food from the Oceans

Recommendations• Integrate a responsible culture and capture approach to

food from the oceans into a food systems policy framework – in the EU and globally

• Raise the strategic priority of EU mariculture, emphasising the potential at lower trophic levels in the ocean food chain

• Continue to develop responsible, ecosystem-friendly fisheries management & practices

• Enable policy change via increased cooperation between Member States and with partner countries

• Future-proof policy by developing the fisheries policy science advice system and filling key knowledge gaps

Impact

• Multiple invitations to showcase the Opinion & foster debate on the recommendations institutionally (EP, COR, Council, Commission) and with stakeholders

• Endorsement by Commissioner Vella of Opinion in several speeches

• Direct impact on 2021-2017 European Marine and Fisheries Fund proposal via one of four main objectives: Food security through competitive and sustainable aquaculture’

• Multiple citations in The European Parliament Resolution “Towards a Sustainable and Competitive European Aquaculture Sector” - 12 June 2018

Food from the Oceans

Questions to be addressed

• Under what circumstances CCU for production of fuels, chemicals and materials can deliver climate benefits and what are their total climate mitigation potential in the mid- and long-run?

• How can the climate mitigation potential of CO2

incorporated in products such as fuels, chemicals and materials be accounted for considering that the CO2 will remain bound for different periods of time and then may be released in the atmosphere?

Novel carbon capture and utilisation technologies

Recommendations

• To develop a methodology to calculate the Climate Mitigationpotential of CCU

• To develop a stable regulatory and investment framework

• To propose a similar approach in international arenas inparticular in the scope of the UNFCCC.

Novel carbon capture and utilisation technologies

Question to be addressed

Could the current EU dual system for approval and authorisation of plant protection products be rendered more transparent, effective and efficient, and if so, how could this be achieved?

EU authorisation processes of Plant ProtectionProducts – from a scientific point of view

Overall recommendationCall for a dialogue on an EU-wide, shared vision of how citizens want their food to be produced, including the role of PPPs, while endorsing the EU’s efforts to achieve a more sustainable use of pesticides.

Specific recommendations• Clarity of protection goals and improvement of their communication• Improvement of organisation and operation of the EU PPP system• Implementation of systematic post-market vigilance• Securing and strengthening scientific knowledge and capacity in risk

assessment• Improved guidance, oversight and transparency of pre-market studies• Re-examination of the treatment of hazards, risks, costs and benefits• Augmentation of mechanisms to resolve divergent scientific

assessments

EU authorisation processes of Plant ProtectionProducts – from a scientific point of view