scientists are often seen as external consultants, experts, business and policy consultant. It is the independence as a scientist, what makes it credible. But you can not find that easy, whether the expert is as independent as he claims.
politicians are as wary and is in expert panels at the occupation is often the standard "my expert, your expert" (or "SPD expert, . CDU-expert ") process
transparency in policy advice is required, especially by lobbyists and interest groups gradually formed but also the demand for more transparency in scientists -. Especially since they often work for lobbyists, associations, businesses and other stakeholders in order or are connected thereto.
has Create the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences (BBAW) "Guidelines for the scientific policy advice" . The guidelines are preceded by three smart, differentiating essays. The guidelines are only three pages long , but they in turn are complemented by several pages Comment, as the guidelines are interpreted.
made light it did not the authors. The authors of the BBAW guidelines are excellent heads, who know the policy advice and 2004-07 worked together in a working group on science policy advice: Mitchell Ash, Reinhard Huettl, Peter Graf Kiely, Reinhard Kurth, Renate Mayntz, Herfried Münkler, Friedhelm Neidhardt, Klaus Pinkau, Ortwin Renn, Eberhard Schmidt-Assmann, Peter Weingart.
The rising importance of scientific policy advice, the authors say in the preamble, the sharp conflict between the different logics of democratic system Policy (increase and securing legitimacy) and science (increase and securing systematic knowledge) to . "Moreover, there is the danger that a proliferation of scientific policy advice, the negligent handling with scientific advice from the policy and vice versa occurs quality defects on the part of providers of advice." The guidelines were aimed not only to science but also for politicians.
for independence from interference issue in the guidelines to the legal basis for permanently appointed advisory bodies to provide precise descriptions of tasks and mandate and delineation of responsibilities; to operation, ensure the quality of advice and also the transparent selection and the position of advisory scientists and disclosure of financial interests, institutional memberships and dependencies .
The Leopoldina - National Academy of Sciences going on under those guidelines.
The Academy of Engineering Sciences (Acatech) deleted "Seven Guidelines for policy and corporate advisory " formulated (October 2010).
The manifesto is much shorter and more compact than that of the BBAW. But just as clearly formulated the Acatech: "All on a consulting project Participants are asked to disclose their interests and interdependencies open to doubt, could give to their impartiality. "
The Berlin journalist Mandy Kunstmann has DUZ magazine the issue of the transparency requirement recently taken up. Under the provocative title" Show us your accounts "she not only reports on the guidelines of the three academies, but also a from the United States initiative " No Free Lunch Pledge " . This is aimed primarily at medical and health researchers. No wonder : There are links of interest to be found most frequently
The Regensburg. Medicine Professor David Klemperer has joined its . On his personal website a document "interest register" is included. Because it leads to not only all the bodies memberships, meetings, conferences and commissions, but minutely also the "material benefit / reimbursement (including attendance fees and travel costs), but also the amount of time the" image enhancement "and" perceived control " .
According DUZ calls Klemperer public register in the health sector, in which people and organizations about their (side) to give income information. "Scientists and physicians who do research or advice should publish all the facts that constitute a conflict of interest. " The magazine continues:
But many may be reluctant to look into the cards. Who would willingly betrays that he can be financed by industry, for example? " It is considered unseemly in Germany, the expert to look too open again bank account," says Prof. Dr. Ortwin Renn, social scientists at the University of Stuttgart. (...) have
In the U.S., experts are required to disclose clear who they work or worked - at least when the public relevant expertise to create. "governs the Administrative Procedure Act," said Ortwin Renn. . For Germany, he considers such a legal basis - or at least a voluntary agreement -
former is desirable for this country but had very little chance, thinks Prof. Dr. Max-Emanuel Geis, legal scholars at the University of Erlangen-Nuremberg " A statutory basis would be disproportionately likely. With a democratically elected body such as a municipal could well require the disclosure. "However, experts were not managing institution. And in any case would yes they are also not own decisions, but only express recommendations.Whether voluntary openness is a successful strategy remains an open question. It would nevertheless be a good reason, namely, the better work in the advisory bodies: know
" If the experts in a committee, with whom they have to do it and what experiences, or that brings, there is openness, and any speculation land is removed from "says Renn.
The three academies are in favor of independent advice. But how can take place independent advice if the experts jobs take care of business corporations or work for organizations like Greenpeace? "The knowledge, the discussion in a working group fertilize," said Leopoldina chief hacking the benefits of professional links to the experts. The insights and experience would not necessarily lead to the rejection of an expert . Scientific pluralism, it is called Max-Emanuel Geis, when more expert meet in a committee. "This is good pluralism," he explained. It creates a greater possibility that an outcome could be objective.
0 comments:
Post a Comment