Improving the credibility of data and qualifications for scientific advisory panels: Model practices and procedures for improving the use of science and scientific advisory panels in regulatory decision-making

The interface between science and policy is widely viewed as fractious, and frequently does not serve to advance best practices in either domain. Whether it is a disbelief in the methods of science, the mistaken belief that science should automatically lead directly to policy conclusions or fears that science is captured by special interests, concerns about the interrelationship of science and policy persist. Since late 2010, the Keystone Center has convened the multi-stakeholder Research Integrity Roundtable (RIR) in a dialogue slated to be completed in March 2012. RIR seeks to anticipate scientific controversies that are either extant or likely to emerge in future regulatory interactions and suggest possible recommendations for improving the way such controversies are handled in the future. An overriding theme of the dialogue is the need to identify or develop better procedures, policies and protocols to help address concerns about conflicts of interest or bias in a variety of manifestations involving the integrity of data (and the processes that produced it) and of scientists and their qualifications. RIR seeks to produce outputs that are intellectually robust, based on consensus among key stakeholders (including leaders from industry and advocacy, with input from liaisons from key federal agencies, and applicable to current and emerging challenges. A presentation will convey the RIR's recommendations for enhancing the credibility and integrity of scientific data and advisory processes that inform policy-making.