The Government decided to consider and issue, by the end of December 2009, a set of principles applying to the treatment of independent scientific advice provided to Government. This followed the Home Secretary's dismissal of Professor David Nutt as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

In this report, the Science and Technology Committee examines how scientific advice and evidence is used in national emergencies, when the Government and scientific advisory system are put under great pressure to deal with atypical situations. The inquiry focused on four case studies: (i) the 2009-10 H1N1 influenza pandemic (swine flu); (ii) the April 2010 volcanic ash disruption; (iii) space weather; and (iv) cyber attacks. While science is used effectively to aid responses to emergencies, the detachment of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA) from the National Risk Assessment (NRA) - the key process of risk evaluation carried out by the Cabinet Office - is a serious concern. The Committee recommends that the NRA should not be signed off until the GCSA is satisfied that all risks requiring scientific input and judgements have been properly considered. A new independent scientific advisory committee should be set up to advise the Cabinet on risk assessment and review the NRA. The Icelandic volcanic eruption in April 2010 is a stark example of the lack of scientific input in risk assessment: the risk of disruption to aviation caused by a natural disaster was dropped from the assessment process in 2009, despite warnings from earth scientists. There are concerns over how risk was communicated to the public during the 2009-10 swine flu pandemic are raised in the report, with sensationalised media reporting about the projected deaths from swine flu. The Scientific Advisory Groups in Emergencies, set up to advise government during emergencies, were found to work in an unnecessarily secretive way.

Following a two-year absence the Science and Technology Committee was re-formed in October 2009 to conduct cross-departmental scrutiny of science and technology. This report summarises the Committee's work of this session. It also reviews the historical landscape of science scrutiny in Parliament across the work of predecessor committees, and documents the impacts they have had on policy and the culture of scientific debate within Westminster. The Committee highlight several inquiries and reports that have had significant impact in informing legislative decisions and holding government to the standard of evidence based policy making.

The Regulation of Animal Health and Welfare draws on the research of scientists, lawyers, economists and political scientists to address the current and future regulatory problems posed by the issues of animal health and disease. Recent events such as the outbreak of mad cow disease, epidemics of foot and mouth disease, concerns about bluetongue in sheep, and the entry into the food chain of the offspring of cloned cattle, have heightened awareness of the issues of regulation in animal disease and welfare. This book critically appraises the existing regulatory institutions and guiding principles of how best to maintain animal health in the context of social change and a developing global economy. Addressing considerations of sound science, the role of risk management, and the allocation of responsibilities, it also takes up the theoretical and practical challenges which here – and elsewhere – attend the co-operation of scientists, social scientists, lawyers and policy makers. Indeed, the collaboration of scientists and social scientists in determined and regulatory contexts such as that of animal disease is an issue of ever-increasing importance. This book will be of considerable value to those with interests in this issue, as well as those concerned with the law and policy relating to animal health and welfare.

In this report on the disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia, the Science and Technology Committee calls for the climate science community to become more transparent by publishing raw data and detailed methodologies. On the accusations relating to Professor Phil Jones's refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee finds there was no systematic attempt to mislead and considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community, but those practices need to change. The Committee welcomes the appointment of the independent Climate Change E-mails Review led by Sir Muir Russell to investigate fully the allegations against CRU. The Committee has not looked at the science produced by CRU and it will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel, announced by the University on 22 March, to determine whether the work of CRU has been soundly built. On the mishandling of Freedom of Information (FoI) requests, the Committee considers that much of the responsibility should lie with the University, not CRU. The leaked emails appear to show a culture of non-disclosure at CRU and instances where information may have been deleted to avoid disclosure, particularly to climate change sceptics. The failure of the University to grasp fully the potential damage this could do and did was regrettable. The University needs to re-assess how it can support academics whose expertise in FoI requests is limited.

Examines the Government's policies on the provision of homeopathy through the National Health Service (NHS) and the licensing of homeopathic products by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

The pressure to be seen to be making cuts across the public sector is threatening to undermine both the Government's good record on investment in science and the economic recovery. Whilst the contribution of a strong domestic science base is widely acknowledged, methodological problems with quantifying its precise value to the economy mean that it is in danger of losing out in Whitehall negotiations. Scientists are under increasing pressure to demonstrate the impact of their work and there is concern that areas without immediate technology applications are being undervalued. The Committee believes the Government faced a strategic choice: invest in areas with the greatest potential to influence and improve other areas of spending, or make cuts of little significance now, but that will have a devastating effect upon British science and the economy in the years to come.

work of the Committee In 2008-09 : First report of session 2009-10, report, together with formal minutes, and written Evidence

Geoengineering describes activities specifically and deliberately designed to effect a change in the global climate with the aim of minimising or reversing anthropogenic climate change. The Committee gives three reasons why they believe regulation is needed. First, in the future some geoengineering techniques may allow a single country to unilaterally affect the climate. Second, some geoengineering testing is already underway. Third, we may need geoengineering in the event of a failure to reduce greenhouse gases we are faced with highly disruptive climate change. The Committee does not call for an international treaty but for the groundwork for regulatory arrangements to begin. The UN is the route by which, eventually, they envisage the regulatory framework operating but first the UK and other governments need to push geoengineering up the international agenda and get processes moving