267142 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

Monday, October 29, 2012 : 1:35 PM - 1:50 PM

Brad Sperber , Center for Science and Public Policy, The Keystone Center, Washington, DC
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.

Learning Areas:
Ethics, professional and legal requirements
Public health or related laws, regulations, standards, or guidelines

Learning Objectives:
Assess approaches to managing conflict of interest and bias in scientific advisory panels. Formulate best practices and challenges in conducting systematic scientific reviews to inform public policy decisions

Keywords: Oversight, Research Ethics

Presenting author's disclosure statement:

Qualified on the content I am responsible for because: I am qualified to present because I have directed and facilitated dialogues on health, science, and social policy issues for approximately 15 years. I have brought groups together to use the best science and collaborative conflict resolution skills to develop sustainable solutions on contentious policy issues.
Any relevant financial relationships? No

I agree to comply with the American Public Health Association Conflict of Interest and Commercial Support Guidelines, and to disclose to the participants any off-label or experimental uses of a commercial product or service discussed in my presentation.

Back to: 3229.0: Epidemiologic Methods