Response to the Committee's second report, session 2013-14 (ISBN 9780215060976)

The Government launched its new horizon scanning programme last July, stating that 'in a tight economic climate, it is more important than ever to have the best possible understanding of the world around us, and how that world is changing'. However, as it stands, the new programme is little more than an echo chamber for Government views. The new bodies that have been created consist entirely of Civil Servants, effectively excluding the vast pool of expertise that exists outside of government. The new programme does not even have a dedicated web presence to keep interested parties informed. The programme's failings are partially attributed to a lack of ministerial oversight. The Government also needs to recognise the potential role to be played in the new programme by the Government Office for Science (GO-Science), specifically the Foresight Unit. The relative lack of impact that the Foresight Unit has historically had on policy is largely a result of its non-central location in government. GO-Science is located in the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS). In contrast, the new horizon scanning programme is located in the Cabinet Office. In choosing to situate the new horizon scanning programme in the Cabinet Office, the Government has recognised the importance of location and has thereby acknowledged the strength of this argument. GO-Science should be relocated from BIS to the Cabinet Office, where it can play a more central role in the new programme and more effectively fulfill its role of ensuring that the best scientific evidence is utilised across government

The risks and benefits of participating in screening programmes, for conditions and diseases like cancer, are not consistently communicated by either the NHS or private health care providers, the Science and Technology Committee has warned in a new report. It is calling on the Government to ensure that a standardised process to produce screening information is introduced and that better communications training is provided to health care professionals. A recently revised breast cancer screening leaflet for the 50-70 age group - with its more explicit focus on helping women make an 'informed choice' about whether screening is right for them - marks a step in the right direction. However, the inquiry found that the principles followed to revise this leaflet have not been applied to the communications developed by other NHS screening programmes. The Committee recommends that steps are immediately taken by the Government's advisor on screening, the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC), to devise and implement a standard process for producing information that facilitates informed choice. It also recommends a clarification of what 'informed choice' means for potential screening participants so that different screening programmes can be more effectively evaluated on their delivery of it. MPs are also calling on the Office for National Statistics to validate the statistics presented in NHS screening information to resolve disagreement and confusion over their accuracy.

The Government is failing to clearly and effectively communicate climate science to the public. There is little evidence of co-ordination amongst Government, government agencies and public bodies on communicating climate science, despite various policies at national and regional level to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The mandate to act on climate can only be maintained if the electorate are convinced that the Government is acting on the basis of strong scientific evidence. Ministers therefore need to do more to demonstrate that is the case and consistently reflect the Government approach in all their communications, especially with the media. The report also criticises the BBC for its reporting on the issue. It points out that BBC News teams continue to make mistakes in their coverage of climate science by giving opinions and scientific fact the same weight. The BBC is called to develop clear editorial guidelines for all commentators and presenters on the facts of climate that should be used to challenge statements, from either side of the climate policy debate, that stray too far from the scientific facts. It is important that climate science is presented separately from any subsequent policy response. Government should work with the learned societies and national academies to develop a source of information on climate science that is discrete from policy delivery, comprehensible to the general public and responsive to both current developments and uncertainties in the science

In its broadest sense, biometrics is the measurement and analysis of a biological characteristic (fingerprints, iris patterns, retinas, face or hand geometry) or a behavioural characteristic (voice, gait or signature). Biometric technologies use these characteristics to identify individuals automatically. Unlike identity documents or passwords, biometrics cannot be lost or forgotten since they are a part of the user and are always present at the time of identification. They are also difficult, though not impossible, to forge or share. Three future trends in the application of biometrics were identified during the inquiry: (i) the growth of unsupervised biometric systems, accessed via mobile devices, which verify identity; (ii) the proliferation of "second-generation" biometric technologies that can authenticate individuals covertly; (iii) and the linking of biometric data with other types of 'big data' as part of efforts to profile individuals. Each of these trends introduces risks and benefits to individuals, to the state and to society as a whole. They also raise important ethical and legal questions relating to privacy and autonomy. The Committee are not convinced that the Government has addressed these questions, nor are they satisfied that it has looked ahead and considered how the risks and benefits of biometrics will be managed and communicated to the public.

Climate Change: Evidence and Causes is a jointly produced publication of The US National Academy of Sciences and The Royal Society. Written by a UK-US team of leading climate scientists and reviewed by climate scientists and others, the publication is intended as a brief, readable reference document for decision makers, policy makers, educators, and other individuals seeking authoritative information on the some of the questions that continue to be asked. Climate Change makes clear what is well-established and where understanding is still developing. It echoes and builds upon the long history of climate-related work from both national academies, as well as on the newest climate-change assessment from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It touches on current areas of active debate and ongoing research, such as the link between ocean heat content and the rate of warming.