In January last year, the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser, Professor John Beddington, started the independent review of the FSA';s science. The report of the review is published today and I'm very pleased to say that it endorses both the fundamental role that science plays in our work and the strengths of our scientific skills and processes that underpin it. The following statement from Professor Beddington captures the positive tone of the report: 'As an evidence based organisation making extensive use of scientists, the Agency in many respects is already operating to the high standards looked for in the Science Reviews. The review findings indicate that the FSA's approach to the use of science has generally been impressive. It is important that this is maintained and enhanced going forward.'
We are the latest of seven Government departments to be assessed. The review has gathered evidence from a broad range of sources, including interviews with staff and key stakeholders, and a formal written consultation of all stakeholders. This evidence, including three case studies and 13 peer reviews of projects, has been considered by an independent steering panel of eminent scientists chaired by Professor Beddington.
Many examples of good practice are highlighted, including 'FSA Board's public declaration of the importance of science and evidence to policy formulation’ and ‘The Agency has put in place a number of good measures to strengthen its science governance processes'. The report also makes a number of recommendations that build on existing strengths and work already under way within the Agency and the independent scientific advisory committees. For example, there are pointers to extra information to include in the Agency's next Science Strategy and a recommendation to institute a more rigorous approach to peer review of Agency-funded research.
It's a good report, but we're not resting on our laurels. Throughout the period of the review we have continued to strengthen our science skills and governance processes, such as through developing the science skills of our staff (50% of whom have a strong science background), the establishment of two new independent scientific advisory committees, the General Advisory Committee on Science and the Social Science Research Committee, and better science governance and communication processes. We are continuing to improve and this report will be helpful in setting priorities. We have three months to develop a response, which we will do through consultation with staff, the Food Advisory Committees (for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland) and the General Advisory Committee on Science. This will be presented to the FSA's Board for discussion at its open meeting in July, when I will also present my third annual report as the Agency's Chief Scientist.
