Yesterday the UK’s House of Commons select committee on science and technology issued a report on scientific advice in times of emergency. The report’s purpose was to study how the government used scientific advice in two recent emergency situations: the Icelandic volcanic eruption in April 2010 and the H1N1 influenza pandemic of 2009 and 2010. It also looked at two potential threats: space weather, which could disrupt power transmission and communications, and the possibility of a future cyber attack.
Normally, these sorts of reports issue a sort of bland “more scientific advice needed” statement, but this one actually has some pretty concrete and reasonable proposals. Most importantly, it calls for scientific advice to be taken before disaster strikes. In particular, it calls for scientists to have a much more active role in the so-called “”https://interim.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/349023/nrr2010-chapter5.pdf”>National Risk Assessment“, a classified document that examines all the risks facing the UK. To facilitate scientific advice in advance, it calls for John Beddington, the chief scientific advisor, to be moved from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to the ”https://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/content/about-cabinet-office”>Cabinet Office, the most central part of the British government.
On the issue of volcanic eruption, the committee says that the possibility of an eruption disrupting air travel had actually been omitted from the 2009 risk-assessment process, despite concerns from earth scientists. When the Icelandic volcano Eyjafjallajökull erupted in April of 2010, scientists were consulted, but the committee says, by then it was too late to avoid much of the confusion and uncertainty surrounding the event.
They take a slightly different tack on last winter’s H1N1 (aka. swine flu) pandemic. Here, the committee says, the issue was not so much the consultation, but the communication of risk to the public. As swine flu spread, scientists came up with some fairly dire mortality predictions that weren’t particularly helpful the committee says. In the future, it encouraged the government publicise a “reasonable worst-case scenario” “most likely scenario”, though how you would decide what’s “most likely” remains unclear.
The committee didn’t let the scientists off either. In particular, it found that emergency committees of scientists needed to be more open and transparent. Membership of the committees should be made public and data should be shared internationally.
The report is fairly measured in its tone, and its conclusions are sound, but some of the ideas might be a bit of a tall order. In the most general sense, it’s extremely difficult to anticipate crises and their consequences. While scientists may be better suited than most to assess natural hazards or epidemics, it doesn’t seem (to me at least) like a given that more scientific involvement will automatically equate to better emergency response. Still, the committee is right to point out that transparent scientific advice in times of crisis will probably do a fair bit of good.
Image: Wikipedia