Integrity in our research and policy support is imperative
If we want to maintain the perception that our advice to the authorities is relevant, then the only way is through scientific professionalism and transparency.
In the past weeks we have once again experienced a media and minister storm with regard to the government’s agricultural package, and once again AU’s policy support has played a significant role in the debate. Some politicians and media have even gone so far as to insinuate that our advice to the authorities might be influenced by the upcoming tender for competitive bids for policy support tasks. The latter is naturally an assumption that we take vigorous exception to, not least because it is wrong.
We have not initiated this debate in any way, but when such debates do turn up, we must stand steadfast. We must, of course, stand firm on our scientific professionalism, which is the core of both our research and our policy support. We must also stand firm on maximum openness and transparency even though it can sometimes be difficult and in conflict with other considerations regarding the authorities and collaborative partners.
Only through professionalism and transparency can we continue to maintain the credibility that is crucial to the perception that our advice to the authorities is relevant – as perceived not only by the authorities but also the agricultural sector, nature organisations and other stakeholders. The latest debate in the media proves how crucial this is.
Prioritisation of validation and calculation of uncertainty
The debate in the media about the NLES model has been about lack of validation and calculation of uncertainty of the NLES4 model. These points are correct and we have clearly stated this in our case memos, answers to the media and opinion articles we have written. The reason that we have not carried out these calculations is that it has been necessary for us to prioritise our efforts.
We constantly and sustained have more tasks than we can overcome. I am also sure that validation and calculation of uncertainty with regard to our advice to the authorities is lacking in many other areas. On the basis of the NLES case, I suggest that we from now on carefully consider how we deal with uncertainty calculations in relation to our advice to the authorities.
Research integrity is achieved by keeping an arm’s length to funders, and by having independent scrutiny of our research results, which is ensured by publishing in peer-reviewed publications. We fulfill these criteria to the fullest.
The balance between arm’s length and dialogue
Integrity in policy support is actually much more difficult to ensure, especially in a way that seen from outside cannot be attacked with regard to arm’s length. In this instance, we need sufficient arm’s length to both the authorities and stakeholder organisations. However, at the same time it is also important to have a dialogue with the authorities and stakeholders to ensure that our advice has the necessary relevance.
This dialogue must in no way influence our scientific professionalism, which in this case, too, is ensured via scrutiny (internal or external). The procedures for scrutiny at AU have recently been tightened up and can hopefully safeguard us against criticism of our scientific professionalism. Our integrity in relation to arm’s length can further be ensured by making sure that we have documentation of all our dialogues with the authorities and stakeholders. This is necessary not least in the context of the increasing number of cases where access to documents of this kind of communication has been requested.