Democratisation of scientific advice: Secrecy and democracy don't mix

doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7491.602

BMJ 2005;330:602 (12 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7491.602

Letter

Democratisation of scientific advice

Secrecy and democracy don't mix

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR—Bal et al struggle to show that "concealing informationfrom public scrutiny" is a necessary condition for "democraticfunction" but fail.¹ The fault in their argument is the assumptionthat an advisory committee should alone decide how the questionis framed, how different types of evidence should be privileged,and how the "performance" should be presented. Similar debateshave been vigorously pursued in the health impact assessmentcommunity.

Dissention in the scientific community is not a problem thatshould be hidden from an ignorant public but a fundamental mechanismin the advancement of knowledge. It is true that knowledge oftemporary or continued dissention will be used naively or evenmischievously and so confuse issues, but that is no excuse forhiding the process by which conclusions are reached.

Scientific reasoning is a powerful tool for improving publicdecision making, but it is not sufficient. Account has to . . . [Full text of this article]

John R Kemm, public health physician

Kings Norton, Birmingham B38 8DF Kemm.cm-jr@tiscali.co.uk