FAQs for Government Departments
Q: Why is GO-Science reviewing science in Government departments?
A: The Government’s strategy for science, engineering and technology “Investing in Innovation” (July 2002) recommended a rolling programme of reviews of science in Government departments, overseen by the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA). The GCSA is responsible for advising the Prime Minister and the Cabinet on the overall health of science and scientific research funded by Government departments. Allied to this is his responsibility for ensuring that science and scientific advice consistently and effectively feeds into departments’ strategy and policymaking. He needs to be in a position to provide assurance on the quality and rigour of the systems which departments have in place for using science and managing research.
Q: What is a science review?
A: A science review assesses the way departments identify their science requirements, manage, quality-assure and use science and scientific advice. To this end the science reviews focus on ten success criteria identified by the Chief Scientific Adviser’s Committee as underpinning good practice in the use of science by Government departments. For the purpose of the review, ‘science’ includes physical, natural and social sciences, research and data collection (monitoring and surveillance) activities. The reviews aim to ensure that departments have robust processes which are used consistently for:
- identifying and prioritising the science they need, both to inform the development of policies and to consider the implications of persistent trends and likely future developments;
- systematically reviewing existing science to determine whether new research is needed or where it would best be targeted;
- publishing and openly debating the results of their research and sharing the knowledge with all who are likely to benefit from it; and,
- using scientific advice, provided by external or internal experts, and / or informed by the output of research programmes.
The usefulness of the advice is assessed, among other criteria, by looking at the effectiveness of communications between the experts and policy makers and whether the science is meaningfully interpreted to satisfy the needs of policy makers. The reviews look to see how the science evidence stream is commissioned and its results considered alongside other evidence streams such as social science and economics.
The reviews also looks at how departments maintain the level and balance of their internal scientific expertise and ensure that they have long-term access to experienced scientists who are able to understand and interpret issues at the science-policy interface taking account of the full range of scientific opinion as appropriate.
The reviews work with the grain of existing arrangements of scrutiny and audit, reinforcing good practice and encouraging consistently high standards. They are as interested in identifying good practice as they are in identifying areas for improvement. The key stages of a typical review are shown in a flowchart.
Q: How does a science review differ from other reviews?
A: Science reviews differ from other reviews in a number of respects: they are independent, steered by a panel of experts from outside Government; they are in-depth, taking a close look at how science is conducted within a department; and they are inclusive, soliciting views and evidence from a wide range of stakeholders as part
of a full public consultation. Reviews aim to complement and build on other work (e.g. the capability reviews) and avoid duplication. Reviews are as interested in identifying good practice as they are in identifying areas for improvement. Reviews do not attempt to tell departments what they should be researching or aim to apportion blame.
Q: How long does it take to complete a review?
A: A review can normally be completed within about 10 months, but delays can occur as a result of negotiations with the department in the lead up to the review and in the subsequent consultations on the final report, with the review steering panel and the department. These discussions are important to the credibility of the reviews, and also to achieving our aim of getting ‘buy-in’ from the department to the improvements we recommend.
Q: Why does it take so long to complete a review?
A: To formulate a credible view on the quality and use of science in a department, the reviews rely on number of evidence streams which include review of available documentation, stakeholder consultation, in-depth interviews, peer review of projects and detailed case studies . Science Reviews are being conducted in two stages to enable departments to benefit from the findings as soon as possible and to this end. At the end of the first stage (five months after the start) Departments are provided with an interim report with preliminary conclusions and recommendations. Further work, varying in scope, is undertaken in the second stage to yield further evidence which can be used to strengthen (or refute) the views of stakeholders.
Q: How much of my [my department’s] time will the review take
A: The reviews are designed to minimise the burden on departments and do not require departments to produce documentary evidence beyond what is readily available. The science review team does not ‘take up residence’ in the department under review but conducts the review in a way that does not involve long periods of concentrated engagement at any time. Each official contributing to the review will be interviewed once and will be expected to allocate an hour or so of their time. However in some cases an official may be interviewed again in connection with a case study which is subsequently carried out. Typically a review might involve interviewing (including case-studies) 40-60 people within the department. Departments are offered a briefing workshop at the launch of the Science Review to help officials become familiar with the review process, and raise issues of concern. Prior to the first steering panel meeting and the publication of the interim report, the Department is also offered the opportunity to discuss the issues arising from the interviews conducted in the first stage of the review. It is helpful if the Department identifies a person or a team of up to three people (to provide continuity in case of absences etc.) for day-to-day liaison. The frequency of the liaison meetings varies and is agreed with the Department.
Q: Have departments which have been reviewed found it helpful?
A: Some of the benefits departments have reported following their reviews include: DCMS have used the review to scope the function of the Chief Scientific Adviser post they will be appointing; HSE have used their review to support their bid for the Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review 2007 and to improve stakeholder engagement; Defra are using their report to inform various improvements, including their approach to social research, horizon scanning and stakeholder engagement; CLG are using their review as a key input to their transformation process; and, the Home Office used the interim report to help inform their reorganisation. Overall, departments are implementing the recommendations in a prioritised way to suit their own particular circumstances.
Q: What changes have departments made following their reviews?
A: Recommendations have been largely accepted by Departments and are at various stages of their implementation. As part of the review process, GO-Science is following up individual reviews within 15 months of their publication (12 months after a department has responded to a review) to find out the extent to which departments have implemented the recommendations. Departments have also made changes during the course of the reviews themselves, based on individual reviews’ preliminary findings.
Q: How do departments benefit from these reviews?
A: The programme of reviews offers departments an opportunity to share good practice from all departmental reviews, not just their own. The fact that the reviews are over-seen by a independent of senior scientists gives departments an authoritative view on how effectively they use and manage science.
Q: Will the review recommend changes that departments cannot afford / or which will be impractical / undesirable?
A: The Science Reviews aim to add value to what departments are already doing for themselves and, to do that, the reviews’ recommendations have to be practicable. GO-Science aims to ensure that the majority of the recommendations made are accepted and acted upon. Clearly, that will only happen if the recommendations made are indeed realistic and important to the effective running of the department.
Q: Are the reviews relevant to departments which do too little science to justify putting too much effort into managing it?
A: From the evidence that has emerged so far, our concerns are less that the science being done is not of good quality but rather that, in some areas, there are insufficient processes in place to provide assurance of that quality and, therefore, the use of that science in evidence-based policy making can be open to question. Although some departments may indeed do little science they may often have responsibility for the stewardship / oversight of a great deal more and they may nonetheless need science advice, and/or need to understand how scientific developments or greater understanding brought about by science can improve their policies and delivery. Furthermore science, for the purpose of the reviews, is interpreted in a broad sense covering the natural and social sciences as well as the analysis of qualitative and quantitative data.