Trends Ecol Evol. 2016 Jan;31(1):7-11. doi: 10.1016/j.tree.2015.10.008.

Communication of Science Advice to Government.

Hutchings JA1, Stenseth NC2.

Author information

• 1Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, 1355 Oxford Street, PO Box 15000, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada; Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, PO Box 1066 Blindern, NO-0316 Oslo, Norway; Department of Natural Sciences, University of Agder, PO Box 422, 4604 Kristiansand, Norway. Electronic address: jhutch@dal.ca.
• 2Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, PO Box 1066 Blindern, NO-0316 Oslo, Norway; Centre for Coastal Research, University of Agder, Norway; Institute of Marine Research, Nye Flødevigveien 20, 4817 His, Norway.

Abstract

There are various ways to construct good processes for soliciting and understanding science. Our critique of advisory models finds that a well-supported chief science advisor (CSA) best ensures the provision of deliberative, informal, and emergency advice to government. Alternatively, bias, increasingly manifest as science-based advocacy, can hinder communication, diminish credibility, and distort scientific evidence.