Talk science with, not to public, experts agree

In a debate on “Communicating science-based debates with stakeholders”, speakers from NGOs, industry and the media agreed that a more pro-active approach was needed to create credibility for science-based policy making.

The debate, which took place as part of the Commission’s “Communicating European Research” Conference (see 
EURACTIV, 15 November 2005
), was moderated by EURACTIV editor-in-chief Willy De Backer, who said modern policy-making was based on consultation with stakeholders and on scientific evidence rather than on ideologies. Policy-makers, he said, are facing a two-fold problem in understanding as well as communicating science. 

Colin Humphris of CEFIC, the European Chemical Industry Council, which is one of the main actors in the debate about the REACH chemicals regulation, said the challenge was to judge new scientific findings in the light of what is already known and to keep in mind that there are not only “things that we don’t know” but even “things that we don’t know we don’t know”. 

Giles Watson of WWF, the NGO that led a powerful campaign on REACH, showed how the scientific method of biomonitoring could be used to demonstrate the risks of chemical residues in humans. He fended off criticism of being “not representative” and “unscientific” by pointing to the quality of the studies, which are prepared in co-operation with highly-regarded laboratories. 

Jacques de Selliers of the Greenfacts Foundation promoted Greenfact’s approach to the reliability problem, which consists in identifying scientific consensus papers on key issues and making them readable for readers with different levels of expertise, including policy makers.

Read more with Euractiv

'Brussels' renews EU transparency debate

The Commission has listed options to prop up the transparency and accountability of EU institutions and lobbyists in Brussels. Transparency campaigners point to a missed opportunity.