Scientific expert assessmentin support of public policies in France

The independence issue

Personal feedback from two experiences

Workshop – London, 18-19 March 2014Claire Sabbagh

INRA and ANSES (ethical Committee)

Who I am

• Managing scientific collective expert assessment activity at INRA (2001-2012)

• Member of the committee for Ethical Standards and Prevention of Conflicts of Interests at ANSES

A few elements from my own experience of the independence issue both at INRA and at ANSES

A political decision to ensure the independence of expert assessment

The legal framework (1998-2013)Formerly expertise was handled by the government with its own dedicated expert staff1998-2001 : creation of national health and safety agencies for food and the environment (AFSSA, AFSSET)2003 : French standard on expert assessment quality X50-110 2004 : Law on expertise 2007-2009 : laws « Grenelle de l’environnement » 2006 : law on research and innovation. Expertise becomes a mission for public research institutions2010 : national charter of scientific expertise2010 : creation of ANSES2013 : law on the transparency of public life Charter on health and safety expert assessmentLaw on independency of expertise and protection of whistleblowers

Motives for questioning the expert assessment independence

- The use of scientific knowledge

- Various actors involved in the assessment process. the decision makers the public institutions providing expertise the experts the stake-holders

A strong interest not only for the findingsbut for the “making off”…

The “conflicts of interest” (CI) issue has become the main focus

• Links of interests are part of research activity

• The DCI is supposed to dispel doubts on expert independence

Conflicts of interestOutstanding issues

• The DCI is an obligation but it depends on the personal evaluation and responsability of the expert

• Where does the need for transparency stop in order to ensure privacy ?

• What will be the balance between CI and academic excellence?

- « Invisible » interests

Two ways to deal with the independence issue

INRA : independence of experts is unachievable-> independence of procedures based expertise and the application of the principle of pluralityANSES : independence of procedures based expertise + monitoring of the ongoing issues raised by the expertise process performed by the ethical Committee

INRA scientific collective expertisesAgriculture, environment, food quality

A few examples - 2002-2012

• Increasing carbon in french agricultural soils?• Pesticides, environment and agriculture • Agriculture and biodiversity• Pain in farm animals• Nitrogen flows in livestock farming system in France…

INRA and independencePoints to pay particular attention to

• To protect expertise process from external pressures, be they political or societal

• To protect expertise process from the biases relative to the institutional values

• To prevent any doubt about INRA’s capacity to deal with sensitive issues for the agricultural sector

-> to emphasis on plurality of expertise

Plurality and impartiality of expert assessment process at INRA

• Multidisciplinarity and plurality of points of view-> to neutralize the expert conflicts-> to highlight uncertainties and controversies

• The findings are under the responsibility of the expert group

• INRA is committed not to the findings but to the application of principles and procedures and compliance of the findings with the literature.

ANSES’s committee for Ethical Standards and Prevention of Conflicts of Interests

A significant innovation in ANSES's governance structure.

• The Committee deals with particularly complex situations and evaluating choices which have been brought into question or raised doubts.

• Its recommendations and opinion, requested by the Director of ANSES, are systematically made public

• An independent structure : 8 members with no connexion with ANSES, various competences

The Aquatrium opinion relative to an assessment on water treatment

NGO’s claim on electromagneticwaves research programme

The Aquatrium opinion is relative to the conditions in

which an expert with conflicts of interest may participate in an assessment in such a way that the process could remain consistent with the principle of independence.

At the moment the committee is working on a claim by an NGO criticizing the way proposals for research on electromagnetic waves are being examined and selected at ANSES

-> mainly requests about conflicts of interest-> emerging issues

The Committee for Ethical Standards and Prevention of Conflicts of Interests

Neither a court of law nor an emergency unit

• The committee’s opinions are expected to clarify the motives for disagreement, to point out the possible gaps in the existing practices and to propose improvements in the procedures

• The committee does not only assist ANSES in the ongoing process but it can play a role in anticipating emerging issues.

Conclusion

• An ideal of a “perfect expertise”, free from any pressures and unquestionable

• In pratice, a democratic process • A “work in progress” approach as new

concerns arise• Benchmarking of practices to achieve

common standards for dealing with the independence issue

Thank you!