Essential principles, definition and scope governing the provision of scientific advice
1. FAO and WHO should adopt the following definitions of scientific advice and scope of scientific advice:
Scientific advice is the conclusion of a skilled evaluation taking account of the scientific evidence, including uncertainties. It may comprise an appraisal of the consequences of one or more options based on an analysis of the available scientific knowledge and on scientific judgement. Such advice should include explicit recognition of any uncertainty either in the current state of knowledge or in the adequacy of the available data. If necessary, it should include any alternative interpretations of the data.
The purpose of scientific advice is to help risk managers, policy makers and others in decision making.
Scope of scientific advice. Advice may take many different forms, from a response to a specific question, or provision of scientific information related to specific needs, to a full quantitative risk assessment. Depending on the degree of uncertainty, advice may range from a clear conclusion on risk to a recommendation to obtain additional data. Advice may be sought at any time throughout the risk analysis process or even subsequently.
Optimal advice requires effective dialogue between risk assessors and risk managers. In some instances advice may include conclusions regarding the need for information and activities necessary to enable capacity building or technical assistance.
2. FAO and WHO should adopt and adhere to the following core principles in the provision of scientific advice: soundness, responsibility, objectivity, fairness, transparency and inclusiveness.
Soundness is the need for scientific excellence, and applies to both the participants and the process. It includes consideration of adequacy of competence, recognized standing in the discipline represented, the ability of opinions and advice to withstand scrutiny by peers, the application of current scientific knowledge in reaching a conclusion, and ensuring that those producing advice represent a suitable balance of expertise.
Responsibility encompasses the various aspects of accountability, and applies both to the need to safeguard the integrity of the process and to consider scientists answerable for their views. This includes the responsibility of participants to justify their views by adequate citation of reputable sources, the application of a suitable level of caution in data interpretation, timeliness, compliance with agreed task description, efficiency in conducting the assessment, cost-effectiveness of the process and maintenance of confidentiality as mandated. An additional aspect of responsibility is that sponsors should be asked to submit all appropriate data, and not just those necessary to comply with the data requirements. Ideally, responsibility should include updating scientific advice on the basis of new knowledge (i.e. review of conclusions).
Objectivity is considered to include neutrality and applies both to the participants and to the advice provided. While participants may be drawn from different sectors, including those where there may be potential conflicts of interest, whenever an opinion is provided it should be independent and unbiased. Both the opinions of individuals and the advice provided should be based only on scientific evidence. In reaching a conclusion it is necessary to balance the opinions from participants with different perspectives and to seek a scientifically-based consensus. The views expressed should be weighted according to the degree of certainty underpinning them. Where scientific advice is the outcome of a risk assessment, there should be adequate separation from risk management.
Fairness applies to the conduct of the assessment process, and requires respect of all participants for each other and for their scientific views. Participants should be given adequate and equal opportunities to express their views. Minority views should be properly considered. Participants themselves should contribute appropriately to the process. The selection of participants should be objective and inclusive to the extent possible. The process should be conducted in an ethical manner.
Transparency involves the design and implementation of mechanisms that ensure that the process whereby advice is formulated and that the advice itself is clearly understandable to others. Transparency could involve the provision of access to pivotal scientific information that is comprehensive, understandable and timely, while respecting legitimate concerns to preserve confidentiality. It could also involve the provision of explicit documentation of all procedures, policies and practices. Transparency may also involve review of both the advice and the procedures involved in providing advice.
Inclusiveness is considered to include group balance. Two aspects of inclusiveness were identified: minority scientific opinion and the balance of skills and expertise necessary for the assessment. Inclusiveness requires that due respect and consideration be given to minority scientific opinion. In the selection of participants, in addition to their expertise, due consideration should be given to geographical and socioeconomic balance, but not to the extent that it compromises scientific integrity. Particular emphasis should be placed on improving the participation of developing countries. Where participation is limited by a skill or knowledge gap, appropriate capacity building activities should be undertaken.
3. FAO and WHO should make every effort to achieve full participation of developing countries in the provision of scientific advice. This will require infrastructure development, capacity building and utilization of data from these countries.
4. In order to facilitate harmonization of terminology, methods, inputs and outputs for the provision of scientific advice, FAO and WHO should initiate a harmonization project to better integrate FAO and WHO activities in areas such as those relating to chemical and microbiological hazards, and biotechnology and nutrition issues. This should commence with the identification and prioritization of topics for harmonization.
5. FAO and WHO should evaluate and prioritize proposed new areas of work. This should include consideration of the need for further resources to support this work. In the first phase of this activity, consideration should be given to current requests for new types of scientific advice from Codex or Member countries, e.g. nutrition.
6. FAO and WHO should develop criteria and a mechanism for identifying new areas in which scientific advice is required, including considerations of prioritization and resourcing. The mechanism selected should ensure coordination with related activities in Member countries and international organizations such as IPPC and OIE to the extent possible.
7. FAO and WHO should establish mechanisms to enable foresight, particularly taking into account the needs of developing countries.
Management of the provision of scientific advice
8. FAO and WHO should, in order to: (1) improve the management of the provision of scientific advice, including enhancing harmonization of scientific approaches and operating procedures; (2) improve the coordination and prioritization of work; and (3) facilitate communication, interaction and transparency:
9. FAO and WHO should develop means to increase the quantity and quality of iterative interactions between those providing scientific advice, e.g. risk assessors (scientific expert bodies) and those requesting advice, e.g. Member countries and Codex.
10. FAO and WHO should enhance the participation of developing countries from all regions in all aspects of the scientific advice process, including identifying priority needs, outreach to scientific experts, training for the purpose of knowledge transfer, as well as access to and use of the outputs of expert bodies. This includes the recognition of regional efforts to generate, collect and coordinate data for risk assessments.
11. FAO and WHO headquarters should communicate more effectively with their regional and national/country offices and Codex Contact Points regarding the activities and needs of programmes relating to the provision of scientific advice, and to ensure better gathering and dissemination of information in developing countries.
12. FAO and WHO should further explore and develop the concept of twinning, i.e. establishing partnerships between developed and developing countries/organizations, to improve the capabilities of developing countries for the provision of scientific advice.
Procedures and mechanisms for the provision of scientific advice
Selection and effectiveness of experts
13. FAO and WHO should harmonize procedures for the selection of experts across the expert bodies by the establishment of a set of clear, publicly available criteria, as appropriate. The selection process should be transparent, including dealing adequately with conflicts of interest and ensuring balance on expert panels.
14. FAO and WHO should make available training opportunities for experts in policies and procedures used by FAO/WHO, communication and language skills, and the ability to recognize conflicts of interest.
15. Although practical barriers will generally limit the conduct of expert panels to English for the foreseeable future, FAO and WHO, and the panels themselves, should make every effort to ensure that language does not limit the range of data and publications considered in their deliberations.
16. FAO and WHO should develop means for actively recognizing the contributions of scientists providing expert advice and their employing institutions.
17. FAO and WHO should recognize expert resource contributions from Member Countries as equivalent to financial contributions.
Data
18. FAO and WHO should encourage and support the submission of data from developing countries.
19. FAO and WHO should develop general guidelines for the inclusion/exclusion of data used by expert panels.
20. FAO and WHO should develop general guidelines related to confidentiality, intellectual property rights, and ethical considerations related to data.
Processes and procedures
21. FAO and WHO should develop guidance for the appropriate use of national and regional expert scientific reports in the deliberations of international expert panels.
22. FAO and WHO should develop improved procedures for the interaction of expert panels with data providers and other stakeholders.
23. FAO and WHO should further analyse different options to enhance the openness and transparency of scientific meetings.
24. FAO and WHO should make their guidelines, policies and procedures related to the provision of scientific advice publicly available for review and comment.
25. FAO and WHO should develop means for assessing and building capacity and infrastructure in developing countries for conducting risk analysis.
Communication of scientific advice
26. FAO and WHO should make reports publicly available as soon as possible, e.g. via the Internet.
27. FAO and WHO should give consideration to the publication of some reports in draft form in order to allow for public comment or peer review before finalization.
28. FAO and WHO should ensure that the existing rules for the inclusion of minority opinions are applied whenever consensus cannot be achieved by an expert body.
29. FAO and WHO should enhance the transparency of their reports through the inclusion of a plain language summary of the findings of expert panels. This may be facilitated by including risk communication experts in expert panels.
