Scientists should be involved in assessing risk to prevent national emergencies

The inquiry focused on four case studies:

1. the 2009-10 H1N1 influenza pandemic (swine flu);
2. the April 2010 volcanic ash disruption;
3. space weather; and
4. cyber attacks.

The Committee is concerned that scientific advice is being used retrospectively to deal with the consequences of crisis and emergency and argues that there should be a shift in the Government’s attitude to consider their advice in the planning process. 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 UK is regularly hit by national crises, or emergencies. Natural hazards that cause emergencies range from extreme weather to animal disease outbreaks, and, more recently, pandemic influenza and volcanic eruptions abroad. In addition, man-made threats including physical or cyber attacks have become increasingly likely over the past decade.

There are raised concerns over how risk was communicated to the public during the 2009-10 swine flu pandemic 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.

Found this story interesting?
Spread the news by clicking below to add it to your bookmarking service:

• Del.icio.us
• Digg this
• Reddit!