FAQs on the Science and Engineering Assurance (SEA) programme
Why is GO-Science reviewing science in Government departments?
Are these reviews different to those done previously for departments?
What is the purpose of the science reviews?
What sort of measures will be used to look at the use of evidence in departments?
What do the science reviews entail?
How have the departments been chosen for review?
How is ‘science and engineering evidence’ defined?
Is information gathered attributed to individual sources?
How will recommendations be developed?
How long does a review take?
What will reviews entail for departments?
What happens after the review is published?
What sort of changes have departments made as a result of previous reviews?
Are reviews relevant to departments who are not ‘science departments’?
Why is GO-Science reviewing science in Government departments?
Decisions that do not take into account a proper understanding of science and engineering are not robust. Policies that take account of sound evidence are more likely to succeed than those that do not, so it is important that government uses, and is seen to use, the best available science and engineering advice. The credibility of departmental policy making will be undermined if it is perceived to be based on poor, inadequate, or inaccurate advice. The SEA reviews support the Government Chief Scientific Advisor (GCSA) in their responsibility to the Prime Minister and Cabinet Office to ensure and improve the quality and use of scientific evidence and advice in Government. Reviews will also identifying good practice that can be shared across government.
Back to top ^
Are these reviews different to those done previously for departments?
Science reviews of departments were first initiated in the Government strategy for science, engineering and technology ‘Investing in Innovation’ (2002), where a rolling programme of reviews, overseen by the GCSA, was recommended. These reviews began in 2003. In 2007 the Science review programme was evaluated and, whilst the value of the reviews was acknowledged, it was recommended that the review programme was revised to be quicker and more agile. The new review programme (the 'SEA' programme) is designed with this in mind.
Back to top ^
What is the purpose of the science reviews?
SEA reviews aim to support departments to ensure they have the capability, systems and culture to access, manage, quality assure and use science effectively in strategy, policy development and delivery, and risk management. They provide targeted expert advice, and provide credible, externally verified assurance that their policy and practice reflects the best evidence available. In doing this, reviews will assess a Department’s capability in the commissioning and deployment of science, and appraise the way in which science has been used in policy development.
Back to top ^
What sort of measures will be used to look at the use of evidence in departments?
Whilst reviews will be tailored to the needs of individual departments, the SEA reviews will be guided by seven high-level criteria for assessing the effective management and use of science, engineering and research in government:
- Strategy, policy making and delivery should be effectively informed by scientific evidence, advice and research.
- Government as a whole, and individual government departments, should take a strategic approach to the prioritisation, accessing, resourcing and delivery of science, engineering and research.
- All science, engineering and research used by government should be robust, relevant and high quality.
- Science, engineering and research should be made publicly available whenever appropriate.
- The implications of science, engineering and research for society should be fully considered, engaging the public, whenever appropriate, using best practices.
- Government should ensure effective knowledge transfer, innovation and pull through of its research to the economic development of new technologies and services.
- Departments should ensure that they have the science, engineering and research capacity and capability to effectively manage and deliver the above sustainably.
Back to top ^
What do the science reviews entail?
Reviews will be tailored to the needs of each department to make sure they gain the maximum benefit. However, there will be a basic blueprint for each review. The review will be split into three phases – scoping and planning with the department (eg agreeing terms of reference and evidence gathering schedules), evidence gathering (eg interviews within the department and with key external stakeholders), and developing, writing and agreeing the report. At each of these stages the SEA team will need to work closely with the department in question to produce a quality review to time.
Back to top ^
How have the departments been chosen for review?
It is planned to work with all those departments that were not included in the first Science Review programme, which was initiated in 2003.
Back to top ^
How is ‘science and engineering evidence’ defined?
For the purpose of the review, ‘science’ includes physical, natural and social sciences, research and data collection (monitoring and surveillance) activities.
Back to top ^
Is information gathered attributed to individual sources?
No – the information that is gathered from individuals will be analysed in such a way that it contributes to the synthesis of an overall evidence base where individuals will not be identified.
Back to top ^
How will recommendations be developed?
Recommendations made in an SEA review will be focused on achieving outcomes that will add value by increasing the department’s capabilities in the development and use of evidence. As such it is important that they are practical and fit for purpose. Recommendations will be developed based on an assessment of evidence gathered, with input from both the expert panel, the department under review and the SEA project team.
Back to top ^
How long does a review take?
The new review process significantly shortens the review period, with the aim of producing a report from 3 months of the review initiation. This 3 month period will be proceeded by a short period of informal engagement with the department’s assigned review contact. This will allow as much pre-research as possible on behalf of the SEA team, allowing minimum impact on the resources of the department in question.
Back to top ^
What will reviews entail for departments?
Reviews are designed to be flexible, but will share many features in common. Reviews are designed to minimise the burden on departments, and do not require departments to produce documentary evidence beyond what is readily available. As a rule, each official contributing evidence to the review will be interviewed once for a maximum of one and a half hours. There may be some cases where a small amount of follow up is required. It is expected that around 20 - 30 officials will be interviewed for each review. Each department will be asked to provide a working contact, who the review team will work with to take the review forward. It is expected that liaison with this contact will be frequent for the review period.
Back to top ^
What happens after the review is published?
Once a review is published, the Department will have an agreed amount of time to publish their official response to the report and its recommendations. This will usually include details of whether they accept each recommendation and how they plan to follow them up. There will also be a review 12 months after this official response to chart progress. In addition to this, good practice identified during the course of the review will be highlighted and shared with other Departments. The ultimate aim is for a move towards self assessment, supported by the SEA team, and with a degree of external scrutiny. The SEA team is currently working with Departments to develop this.
Back to top ^
What sort of changes have departments made as a result of previous reviews?
Recommendations from the first set of reviews have been largely accepted by departments, and many have been actioned. Example include; DCMS using the review to scope the function of their Chief Scientific Adviser post; HSE using the review to support their bid in the Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review 2007, and to improve their stakeholder engagement; DEFRA informed various improvements with their review, including their approach to social research, horizon scanning and stakeholder engagement; the CLG review was a key input to their transformation process; and the Home Office used the interim report to help inform their reorganisation. Departments have also made changes during the course of the reviews themselves, based on preliminary findings.
Back to top ^
Are reviews relevant to departments who are not ‘science departments’?
Science is defined in the broad sense for these reviews, incorporating the natural and social sciences. With this in mind, it is likely that all departments will benefit in their policy making, strategic planning and risk management from improving their capabilities for the management and use of science and engineering evidence.
Back to top ^
