ARTICLE

Received 30 Nov 2015 | Accepted 9 Aug 2016 | Published 6 sep 2016 DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.59 OPEN

Temporal and spatial dimensions in the

management of scientific advice to governments
Marc Saner1

ABSTRACT Scientific advice is given to governments through a variety of processes and

structures. A key task is, thus, to understand the pros and cons of the various process design
options. In this article, two very basic and abstract components of all process options are
discussed: their temporal and spatial dimensions. The temporal axis is bracketed by pro-
cesses that are either divided into entirely distinct tasks or joined into interactive processes. The
spatial axis is bracketed by teams that are either physically or administratively embedded or
sequestered. The separation of these two axes and their endpoints provides a foundation for a
governance analysis that is highly universal and that provides some insights into all types of
scientific advice to governments. This article is published as part of a collection on scientific
advice to governments.

1 Geography and Institute for Science, Society and Policy, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Correspondence: (email: [email protected])

PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS | 2:16059 | DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.59 | www.palgrave-journals.com/palcomms 1

ARTICLE PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.59

Introduction The temporal dimension: distinct tasks or interactive

S
cientific advice to governments comes through a variety of process?
processes and structures. Two recent articles provide useful Scientific advice can be understood as a question and answer
high-level typologies. Gluckman (2016) distinguishes five (Q&A) process between requesters and providers of evidence
“categories” of scientific advice: (1) technical, (2) regulatory, (3) (either individuals or committees). Granted, the process may vary
deliberative, (4) informal, and (5) crises and emergencies. Each of from being highly structured, like an expert panel process, to
these five categories represents a different administrative context highly unstructured, like the processes for scientific advice during
or environment. Furthermore, they may employ different actors, crises and emergencies. Nevertheless, advice is an answer to a
require different standards of professional conduct, and use question, which may be written or unwritten, formally requested
different resources. or anticipated.
Hutchings and Stenseth (2016) distinguish seven “models” of I define here “evidence” very broadly as “answers that are
scientific advice: (1) advocates, (2) advisory committees, (3) reasonably reproducible if the same clear question is posed and
government scientists, (4) supranational organizations, (5) the same methodology is used”. Within this definition, the
legislatively responsible advisory bodies, (6) National Academies providers of evidence are in a delegation model (Guston, 2003)
and (7) Offices of Chief Science Advisors. Each of these seven and function as experts no matter if they are tasked with a physics
models represents a different type of actor or organization. Again, or economics assignment, or if they hold Western or aboriginal
different resource needs and standards of professional conduct knowledge, or if they describe the past or model the future.
may be associated with the different types. Importantly, the use of the word “evidence” reminds us that the
The two typologies cover a large territory of options for the social sciences are on an equal footing with the natural sciences
actors and organizations engaged in scientific advice (Hutchings when it comes to giving scientific advice to governments (Caplan,
and Stenseth, 2016), and the contexts and environments for the 1979). Science advice should be understood very broadly in the
scientific advice (Gluckman, 2016). A matrix built on the two context of this article, covering all levels in hierarchies (from low-
classifications (seven types of actors versus five types of contexts) ranking technical experts to Chief Science Advisors) and covering
would lead to a theoretical maximum of 35 options. Even if the all forms of evidence, including evidence from the social sciences
number of practically viable options is lower (because each and legal expertise.
context may fit only a subset of actors and organizations), Staying within this terminology, and with a focus on the
managers still face a complex array of options for scientific advice temporal dimension, two different processes can be distinguished:
to governments. This gives rise to the following challenge: how
should managers decide which of the many options are most (1) The development of Q&A as a series of distinct tasks occurs
appropriate, credible, affordable and productive in any given when the delivery of the question by the requesters of
situation? evidence is followed by the delivery of the answer by the
In this article, I aim to address elements of this challenge. To providers (the experts).
do so, I will introduce a third typology based on two basic (2) The development of Q&A as an interactive process occurs
dimensions that are at least partly under managerial control: the when there are on-going communications between the
temporal and spatial aspects by which processes are designed and requesters and providers of evidence during both the
staff are arranged. By no means does this replace the two other development of the question and the development of the
typologies. It provides conceptual elements, however, that answer.
managers may find intuitive and easy to remember. Also, the
conceptual simplicity and abstraction of looking at just two basic While these extremes may not exist in pure form and are not
dimensions is useful when analyzing options in the context of mutually exclusive, well-established and policy-relevant organiza-
principles of good governance, that is, direction, legitimacy, tional designs can illustrate the two models (see below). With the
accountability, fairness and performance (Graham et al., 2003). insights from the STS discipline in mind, I want to state up-front
A first attempt at such is included in this article. that no linear, unidirectional, monotonic or otherwise simple
This article is written for practitioners rather than academic relationships are implied (Pielke, 2007). It is understood that real
experts in Science and Technology Studies (STS). STS defines people have biases and derive judgments from many contexts,
itself as “a flourishing interdisciplinary field that examines the that relationships are reflexive, that much science and policy are
creation, development, and consequences of science and co-produced, and that even clear questions and answers are
technology in their cultural, historical, and social contexts” value-laden (Jasanoff, 1987, 1990, 2006; Douglas, 2009). I do
(Hackett et al., 2008). Processes of scientific advice giving and make two basic assumptions, however. First, no matter how
the boundary between science and policy are key themes within complex and reflexive the process may be, events still follow a
STS, and a new technical language has developed as a result. For chronology and are caused. Second, no matter how entwined the
example, all of the following technical terms have something to so-called “science” and “policy” sides are, their distinctness needs
do with the exchange between science advisors and those who to be postulated before one can ponder how entwined they are
seek their advice: “boundary organizations”, “boundary-span- and how porous the boundary between them may be.
ning organizations”, “boundary objects”, “boundary-ordering
devices”, “boundary-defining language”, “boundary disputes”,
“contested boundaries”, “principal-agent theory”, “ideal con- Illustrative examples of distinct tasks designs. An example of a
tracting”, “dual agency”, “co-production of knowledge”, process design based on distinct tasks is the expert committee
“hybrid management”, “standardized packages”, “trans- process of the National Research Council (NRC) of the U.S.
science” and “science wars” (Jasanoff, 1987; Guston, 2001). National Academies. The NRC implements a tested and sophis-
While this technical language provides the tools for nuanced ticated design of the interface between those who request (and
case studies, it also represents a steep learning curve for use) evidence and those who provide it (Fig. 1, below, NRC n.d.).
outsiders, including many government managers who need to The NRC funds the expert panels project-by-project from
make decisions on processes and organizational designs. For external money (often from governments) and one can therefore
this reason, I avoid these technical terms and focus on plain conclude that a market for its process and products exists.
language use. Organizations that commission reports, such as government

2 PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS | 2:16059 | DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.59 | www.palgrave-journals.com/palcomms

PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.59 ARTICLE

Figure 1 | The development of Q&A as a series of distinct tasks can be illustrated by the study process of the U.S. National Research Council (NRC, n.
d., simplified and chronology arrow added).

Figure 2 | The development of Q&A as an interactive process can be illustrated by the ISO (2009) Risk Management Process (flipped horizontally
and chronology arrow added).

agencies, have the final pen over the formulation of the assess- requester of evidence will normally be a manager assigning a
ment question. In contrast, the expert panel has the final pen over task to an employee who has greater subject matter expertise or
the answer (the assessment report). As Fig. 1 shows, the Com- more time available to provide a complete answer. The provider
mittee selection and approval process continues after the first of the evidence may be trusted to provide an answer of sufficient
meeting. The reason for this overlap is the close monitoring of quality or the answer may undergo versions of peer review.
panel members for conflicts-of-interest. There is also an extensive Dependent on the management approach, a process that starts
report review process integral to this design. NRC staff commonly as distinct tasks can easily be morphed into an interactive
use the “threat of report review” to ensure that expert committees process.
stick to the facts and, perhaps more importantly, that they answer
the question before them, rather than a question that appears
more relevant to them (Dr Richard Bissell personal Illustrative examples of interactive process design. An example
communications). of an interactive process model is provided by current thinking
In some cases, the expert panel can be involved in the on risk management, risk communication and risk governance.
development of the assessment question. This is meaningful as it The ISO 31000 series of standards by the International Organi-
improves the full comprehension of the question and the buy-in zation for Standardization provides a typical example (Fig. 2, ISO,
by the panel. For example, it allows the experts to comment on 2009). Similar concepts that stress the need for on-going com-
how answerable the question is expected to be within the given munication can be seen in most risk management standards,
time and resource constraints. However, the final pen for the including those used by regulatory agencies (Saner, 2005).
question remains with the requester of the evidence. The discipline of risk communication has grown in promi-
At the end of the process, the requester of evidence may see the nence over recent decades, and the awareness that risk evidence is
report a few days prior to publication to prepare media matters. value-laden has also increased (Brunk et al., 1995; Douglas, 2009).
The final pen for the report remains with the panel after full As a result, current standards for risk analysis stress the
consideration of peer review comments. importance of ongoing communication between those who assess
While there may be a difference between design and reality, technical issues and those who use the information (or are
this sequential separation between the users and providers of otherwise affected by it). Risk communicators argue that trust and
evidence has the benefit that the process can be portrayed as relevance are increased with the greater transparency that can be
highly impartial. The seclusion within which the expert panel achieved through ongoing communication and consultation
develops its reports helps to minimize perceived political (Renn, 2006). Furthermore, the values embedded in so-called
interference and the report review furthers trust in the quality, “evidence” can be calibrated if experts better appreciate risk
completeness and impartiality of the product. tolerances and perceptions by stakeholders. The interactive
Many other examples for the distinct tasks design exist. If the process allows in theory for a progressive tweaking of the
delegation of a question happens within an organization, or assessment question and for more relevant, better-formulated
office, then the process is likely to be much less formal. The answers (note: in regulatory practice, this model may be

PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS | 2:16059 | DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.59 | www.palgrave-journals.com/palcomms 3

ARTICLE PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.59

considered overly ambitious; the division between the secretive Providers of scientific advice (evidence) are embedded if they are
risk assessment of proprietary data and the more public risk either co-located with the requesters of evidence or if they are
management remains common within regulatory agencies who within the same administrative unit. For example, if risk assessors,
work within a tight legal framework and the threat of lawsuits). risk managers and risk communicators work in the same office
Many other examples of interactive processes for the develop- then they should be considered spatially embedded. It is, of course,
ment of questions and answers exist. Within an office or possible to keep secrets from the person in the next cubicle, but the
organization, input by technical personnel may be valued in the proximity has real consequences for how the process is perceived
formulation of research or assessment questions. If the question is from the outside and chance encounters can affect the process. A
co-produced in this fashion, then the final pen is shared. Chief Science Advisor may be located in a central political building,
Similarly, the feedback from users (the requesters of evidence) in a central agency, in a peripheral agency, or in their own office
will often matter when it comes to the formulation of answers (by and organizational unit. A Chief Science Advisor should care about
providers of evidence). Again, the final pen on the answer may be this issue—even just for the sake of perception—although it may
shared in this case. However, a process that starts as an interactive not affect their mandated portfolio of duties or how accessible the
process may eventually be separated into a series of distinct tasks requesters of evidence are.
by a manager, especially if the interactive process becomes overly Providers of evidence in certain professions will have a greater
time consuming or if accountabilities become overly diffused. chance of being embedded. Politicians may want specialists on
polling and communications embedded. Policymakers may want
The spatial dimension: embedded or sequestered experts? economics and legal experts embedded, not only because of need
Spatial arrangements affect how scientific advice to governments is but also because they often have legal and economics expertise
managed in at least two ways. First, physical proximity facilitates themselves. Similarly, scientists in policy roles may like to keep
planned and chance encounters face-to-face. As a result, closely the labs close.
knitted teams are normally co-located. The increasing availability
of information and telecommunication technologies is slowly Illustrative examples of sequestered experts. In the judicial
changing this reality, but office buildings are still very much context stakes are particularly high and physical proximity and
arranged the way organizational charts suggest. Experts in this information exchange are often closely monitored and regulated.
model are embedded—the providers of evidence are in the same For example, in the U.S., there are clear rules stating how a jury
physical space as the requesters of evidence. may—and may not—interact with outsiders. Physical separation
Second, physical distance suggests that a measure of indepen- serves as a tool to limit interference and juries are sequestered
dence and impartiality can be achieved. For example, regulators while deliberating a verdict. This practice is not without down-
and regulated parties do not normally share offices because it sides, of course. For example, a single individual may dominate or
would raise doubts about how the impartiality of the regulators is sway even the most carefully selected jury and the time constraint
maintained. As a rule of thumb, experts and observers will find it and setting can affect an outcome. The movie 12 Angry Men
easier to convincingly claim their independence when they can (directed by Sidney Lumet in 1957) is a popularized illustration of
point to the existence of a physical distance, that is, when they are these real possibilities. This judicial example illustrates some of
sequestered. the pros and cons of sequestration of groups charged with pro-
Staying within this terminology, and with a focus on the spatial viding an evidence-based answer to a question.
dimension, two different arrangements can be distinguished: Providers of evidence are sequestered if they are either
physically distant from the requesters of evidence or if they are
(1) Providers of evidence can be considered embedded with in separate administrative units. Outside a court setting or papal
requesters of evidence if there is constant or in-depth election, sequestration will rarely be absolute. For example, a
exchange facilitated by physical proximity (or, at least, if powerful decision maker may call up experts in their workstations
the organizational charts suggest such a physical proximity). and influence the course of answer-making by asking a few
(2) Providers of evidence can be considered sequestered from leading, “empirical” questions. Nevertheless, it is common to
requesters of evidence if they are deliberately physically separate functions into different organizational units to avoid the
separated (or, at least, if the organizational charts suggest perception of conflicts-of-interest. In Canada, for example, the
such a physical separation). Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) has been spun-off
from Agriculture and Agri-food Canada (AAFC). One of the
While there is a continuum between these extremes (people benefits of the new organizational and physical sequestration is
can be temporarily embedded and sequestered, for example), that it demonstrates that the regulators (CFIA) are not commonly
well-established and policy-relevant practices can illustrate the exposed to direct pressures from the trade experts (AAFC).
two organizational design models. Sometimes, an “apparent separation” can be used to make that
point. For example, when the (now defunct) Canadian Biotech-
nology Secretariat was created it was housed within its
Illustrative examples of embedded experts. A well-known
example of embedded experts is provided by U.S. journalists administrative unit at Industry Canada. Their business cards,
however, showed a different mailing address, which helped to
during the Iraq war (Tuosto, 2008). Embedding journalists into
the army has several compelling advantages in terms of infor- demonstrate their independence from industry interests. This was
a trivial task because the back and front entries of the building
mation access, immediacy and safety. However, it put the
impartiality of the journalists immediately into question. The have different street addresses. Real or perceived sequestration
has additional benefits as I will discuss below.
public knows from personal experience, even family life, that
physical and emotional distance has an effect on the way we
assess situations. We feel, analyze and report differently Temporal and spatial dimensions combined
depending on whether we are together or apart and experts are The combination of the temporal and spatial dimension leads to
not immune to this. Journalists function to the public as providers four options, as shown in Fig. 3, below. The four options,
of evidence (and analysis) and their impartiality—real or per- delegation, collaboration, commission and consultation, are all
ceived—matters. commonly used by process designers and managers; they also

4 PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS | 2:16059 | DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.59 | www.palgrave-journals.com/palcomms

PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.59 ARTICLE

Figure 3 | A visual summary of the menu and space for the (adaptive) management of science-policy interfaces and scientific advice to government.
Each of the options, and each combination of options, could be used for individuals or for committees.

qualify as common language. None of the management options evidence of all kinds (including non-traditional evidence) and
discussed in this article are static or absolute. The four categories makes available an array of values that is likely more complete
represent a theoretical minimum. From a management perspec- than the array held by a single expert, advisor, committee or
tive, every case is different and the personalities involved will office. Furthermore, consultation will likely improve the ultimate
matter. It will also matter to management and governance if buy-in from stakeholders, especially those who believe that their
individuals or committees are used to provide the functions. contribution has been considered. For a genuine and effective
The utility of the classification is that it provides an easy-to- interactive process, managers need to be mindful of invisible
grasp menu for governance experts and managers with indica- barriers (such as technical jargon or inconvenient access) that can
tions of some pros and cons to consider. A focus on just two make an interactive process less effective. Managers will also need
straightforward axes simplifies the analysis of some of the key to watch for capture of the process by powerful interests. If power
pros and cons from a governance perspective. to set direction should be shared, then an interactive process
needs to extend to the formulation of the question.
Governance principles and the selection of scientific advice The separation of distinct tasks (for example, one actor
models produces the question and another actor produces the answer)
The multitude of options may provide an embarrassment of that can be used as an argument for the integrity of the process
riches to managers. Which model is the best for which context? and the impartiality of the scientific advice. For example, if a
Granted, a given administrative context, such as regulation, an politically elected body firmly holds the pen on the formulation of
emergency situation, or requests for technical, deliberative or the question then the strategic direction embedded in that choice
informal advice, (Gluckman, 2016) may greatly reduce the is kept apart from the values held by the experts commissioned to
available options. Also, some of the available options such as provide an answer. This matters especially if experts embrace an
advocates, advisory committees, government scientists, suprana- ideology embedded in their profession (for example, most nuclear
tional organizations, legislatively responsible advisory bodies, physicists may be techno-optimists and inclined to believe that
National Academies and Offices of Chief Science Advisors nuclear power can be generated safely). Similarly, the formulation
(Hutchings and Stenseth, 2016) may be mandated to follow a of the answer is less exposed to political interference if the
specific process. Nevertheless, a choice of options may be individual or committee providing the answer has full control
available for the task at hand and the existing designs may need over the precise formulation of the text (and is protected from
to be adapted or improved. The question will be how to optimize repercussions after delivering the answer). In the case of
the temporal and spatial arrangements. committees, this process also facilitates achieving consensus
An evaluation of the intrinsic pros and cons of distinct tasks compared to a highly interactive process. The full implementation
versus interactive processes and of embedding versus sequestering of such a process design may be very difficult, but this does not
should be helpful in this situation. It provides general observa- necessarily take away from the ability to make the claim that the
tions that are not dependent on the exact nature of the context process fosters impartiality. The ability to foster the perception of
and actors. I offer in this section a brief and preliminary analysis impartiality can be of critical importance to those designing
based on key indicators of good governance (Graham et al., models of scientific advice to governments. This needs to be
2003): Direction, Legitimacy, Voice, Fairness, Accountability and weighed against the limitations of this process, which can easily
Performance. be perceived as secretive and elitist.

Governance principles and “distinct tasks vs. interactive Accountability (and transparency). The interactive process can be
process” complex, diffuse, situational, informal or unpredictable. As a
result, it may be difficult to document and understand the nature
Direction, legitimacy, voice, fairness (and impartiality). The interactive of influences. Powers, duties, responsibilities, accountabilities,
process satisfies democratic principles, provides broader access to culpabilities and liabilities may become difficult to clearly

PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS | 2:16059 | DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.59 | www.palgrave-journals.com/palcomms 5

ARTICLE PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.59

understand, document and consent to. While the open, on-going clear briefs on their duties and rights and formal means of
process could theoretically be a model of transparency, the communication. The existence of these documents and mechan-
practice may vary because lobbyists may be quite skilled at isms can facilitate transparency and communication with public
influencing and even capturing the direction, evidence and values at large. Broad geographic distribution can also improve the
that are represented in the formulation of questions and answers. dissemination of results, which renders the process more known
A process that is a series of distinct tasks provides a and more transparent. However, greater geographic distribution
comparatively clearer division of labour and powers. The may facilitate influencing by outsiders (the providers of evidence
handover steps can be developed into a highly consistent process cannot be “watched” by the co-located requesters of evidence)
that is easy to communicate clearly. Powers, duties, responsi- and accountability and transparency can be reduced.
bilities, accountabilities, culpabilities and liabilities can more The local clustering that results from embedding creates the
easily be explained, documented and consented to. In this sense risk of clan-like behaviour where no single individual is fully
the process is straightforward and transparent. However, what accountable because everyone is involved in everything (even if a
happens during the closed components of the process is entirely process is supposed to be a series of distinct tasks). Strong
non-transparent. Furthermore, the assignment of relatively bonding between team members could prevent disclosure of
sweeping powers into the hands of committees or single experts inappropriate processes or decisions. If the requesters and
could be a major problem if issues around the legitimacy and providers of evidence are “under siege” from watchdogs then it
impartiality of the requesters or providers of evidence arise. becomes tempting to carry out all sensitive communications in
corridors, coffee shops and private meetings. However, proximity
Performance (and relevance). The interactive process has the potential may also reveal accountability problems sooner and provide a
for greater relevance, trust and impact. One reason is the greater greater chance of early remedy.
chance to include all knowledge and relevant values. There is also
greater flexibility during times of urgency. Interaction can be very Performance (and relevance). The sequestration of the requesters and
slow, however, and vulnerable to those who desire a delay, which providers of evidence improves the credibility of impartiality
negatively affects performance. If undue influence takes place, claims, especially in a process that is separated into distinct tasks.
then relevance is reduced. Nevertheless, relevance is potentially Sequestered experts may feel sheltered from politics and find it
excellent because stakeholders can react to ongoing communica- easier to work “in their zone”. However, the physical distance can
tions and correct the assessment direction if needed. And there is create logistical obstacles related to travel, scheduling, and
a greater chance to benefit from reflexivity during this process. meetings, especially if the process is interactive. Also, sequestra-
A process that clearly delineates the roles of requesters and tion may decrease the understanding and trust between the
providers in the formulation of questions and answers can providers and requesters of evidence. The distance, thus, can
increase the performance and relevance of a highly qualified impact relevance negatively.
individual or committee. Expert opinion or consensus can be The local clustering that results from embedding can promote
delivered in a straightforward, efficient fashion to the requester of efficiency, competence and understanding through the greater
evidence. However, the requester of evidence may have little opportunity for bi-directional exchange. Serendipitous exchanges
control or input on the time management of those who provide can further this effect. The benefit of the proximity at the
answers. In the case of National Academies, the assessment workplace may be off-set by “cocooning” with respect to those
process often takes 1–2 years, which can be incompatible with the who are not part of the Q&A process. If inappropriate influencing
speed by which public and political attention shifts. “Leaving the is suspected and “cocooning” is perceived then the relevance of
experts alone” can also render them irrelevant. the process is negatively impacted. Furthermore, workplace
politics (for example, career-thinking) can get in the way of
Governance principles and “sequestered vs. embedded actors” team work.

Direction, legitimacy, voice, fairness (and impartiality). The sequestration

of the requesters and providers of evidence is not likely to affect Conclusions
strategic direction setting (although it does facilitate greater As Doubleday and Wilsdon (2013) so aptly put it, “there is no
secrecy which theoretically could affect direction). If geographic universal solution to science advice”. So-called science-policy
diffusion is significant then it could translate into improved interfaces do indeed occur in great diversity, distributed within
legitimacy and voice through broader regional representation. and between organizations and hierarchies. In absence of
Geographic distribution may also result in a greater awareness of universal solutions, clear typologies can provide heuristic tools
equity and fairness issues across the public. The public perception and a menu of options. The typology presented here, and the
of impartiality is facilitated through sequestration due to physical preliminary analysis of pros and cons should help managers think
distance between the requesters and providers of evidence. On the through the consequences of spatial arrangements between the
downside, sequestration renders an interactive process less requesters and providers of evidence and the temporal arrange-
convenient and the requesters of evidence may find it difficult ments by which questions and answers are formulated.
to relate to the providers. Highlighting the difference between the spatial and temporal
The local clustering that results from embedding translates into dimensions prevents the potential conflation of (1) the temporally
a greater facility for consultation. The close proximity can also interactive process with spatially embedded experts and (2) the
foster reflexivity and the discussion of issues that are not strictly temporally distinct sequence of tasks with organizationally or
part of the Q&A process but that are important auxiliary topics spatially sequestered experts. These conflations happen when all
relevant to an informed, politically sensitive process. The knowledge is viewed as embodied in experts. In my experience, it
perception of impartiality is harder to maintain, however, because is indeed often challenging to clearly separate “expert” and
inappropriate interactions between the requesters and providers “expertise” throughout a discussion. An emphasis on the
of evidence and influencing may be alleged. importance of the formulation of questions (often done by
“non-experts”) shows that the conflations are by no means
Accountability (and transparency). The sequestration of the requesters warranted. For this reason alone, it is worthwhile to clearly
and providers of evidence will normally entail that parties have separate the Q&A process (the process that deals with knowledge)

6 PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS | 2:16059 | DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.59 | www.palgrave-journals.com/palcomms

PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.59 ARTICLE

from the roles of requesters and providers of evidence (the Let me end on an optimistic note. In the absence of universal
process that deal with people) as shown in Fig. 3, above. The plain rules for scientific advice to governments, everyone might just
language concepts shown may be useful in these interdisciplinary agree on this formulation of what is virtuous at the interface of
discussions, in analyses, and in planning processes. science and policy: experts should always report clearly not only
A comparative governance analysis of the pros and cons of the what is known, is not known, could be known, and should be
multitude of models would require much more depth and many known (Carpenter, 1980), but also what has been valued, has not
illustrative case studies. It is not wrong to claim that every case is been valued, could be valued, and perhaps should be valued
different. Nevertheless, a few insights of general application can (Saner, 2003).
be teased out. The preliminary governance analysis highlights two
foundational dilemmas.
The Dilemma of Strong Boundaries: On the one hand, it is very
difficult to defend the very idea of strong boundaries; judgment
References
and facts become easily entwined, requesters and providers of Brunk CG, Haworth L and Lee B (1995) Value Assumptions in Risk Assessment: A
evidence influence each other in various and subtle ways, Case Study of the Alachlor Controversy. Wilfrid Laurier University Press:
processes are by no means linear or unidirectional, and evidence Waterloo, ON, Canada.
is not mobilized as discrete parcels of uncontested truth. On the Caplan N (1979) The two-communities theory of knowledge utilization. American
other hand, there are strong incentives for participants at the Behavioral Scientist; 22 (3): 459–470.
Carpenter RA (1980) Using ecological knowledge for development planning.
science-policy interface to maintain (at least the perception) of Environmental Management; 4 (1): 13–20.
strong boundaries. Strong boundaries provide a system within Doubleday R and Wilsdon J (eds). (2013) Future Directions for Scientific Advice in
which one is (1) held accountable only for what one controls, (2) Whitehall. University of Cambridge Centre for Science and Policy: Cambridge,
has greater control over a smaller well-defined area and (3) enjoys UK.
the perception of greater impartiality, deserved or not. Both Douglas H (2009) Science, Policy and the Value-free Ideal. University of Pittsburg
Press: Pittsburgh, PA.
temporal and spatial boundaries can be used to realize these Gluckman P (2016) Science advice to governments: An emerging dimension of
benefits. science diplomacy. Science & Diplomacy; 5 (2): 9
The Dilemma of Weak Boundaries: On the one hand, it is very Graham J, Amos B and Plumptre T (2003) Principles for Good Governance in the
difficult to present weak boundaries alongside the claim that 21st Century; Institute on Governance Policy Brief No.15 Institute on
embedded experts and interactive processes are the very best one Governance: Ottawa, Canada.
Guston D (2001) Boundary organizations in environmental policy and science: An
can do to ensure impartiality and accountability. On the other introduction. Science, Technology & Human Values; 26 (4): 399–408.
hand, there are strong incentives for participants at the science- Guston D (2003) Principal-agent theory and the structure of science policy. Science
policy interface to defend the importance of weak boundaries. and Public Policy; 30 (5): 347–357.
Weak boundaries provide a communication platform where (1) Hackett EJ, Amsterdamska O, Lynch ME and Wajcman J (2008) The Handbook of
the clarity, practicality and value of questions can be discussed Science and Technology Studies, Third Edition. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA.
Hutchings JA and Stenseth NC (2016) Communication of science advice to
early on, (2) all forms of knowledge can flow into the formulation government. Trends in Ecology & Evolution; 31 (1): 7–11.
of an answer, and (3) answers can be delivered based on a good ISO, International Organization for Standardization. (2009) ISO 31000:2009 Risk
understanding of the uptake capacity and expectation of the management: Principles and guidelines. Published online at https://www.iso.
audience. Both temporal and spatial tools can be used to realize org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:31000:ed-1:v1:en, accessed 20 November 2015.
these benefits. Jasanoff S (1987) Contested boundaries in policy-relevant science. Social Studies of
Science; 17 (2): 195–230.
This preliminary governance analysis prompts me to formulate Jasanoff S (1990) The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Harvard
two hypotheses on how the public may judge models of scientific University Press: Cambridge, MA.
advice to governments. Jasanoff S (2006) Technology as a site and object of politics. In: Goodin RE and
Hypothesis on Time, Space and the Benefits of Strong Tilly C (eds). The Oxford Handbook of Contextual Political Analysis. Oxford
Boundaries: I speculate that the benefits of strong boundaries University Press: New York, pp 745–763.
NRC. (n.d.) Our Study Process: Ensuring Independent, Objective Advice. The
are best realized by focussing on the spatial rather than the National Academies: Washington DC.
temporal dimension. A physical or organizational segregation Pielke R Jr (2007) The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics.
demonstrates the clear managerial intent to keep politics out of Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA.
the evidence. In contrast, a separation of a project into distinct Renn O (2006) Risk communication—consumers between information and
tasks is a comparatively more abstract and hidden signal. The first irritation. Journal of Risk Research; 9 (8): 833–849.
Saner M (2003) On the public controversy over the regulation of risk: Towards a
hypothesis, thus, is: the public perception of impartiality is more professional ethics for risk evaluators. Professional Ethics Journal; 11 (4): 79–85.
shaped by knowledge of spatial (and organizational), rather than Saner M (2005) Information Brief on?International Risk Management Standards.
temporal arrangements within science-policy interfaces. In brief, Institute On Governance: Ottawa, Canada.
the benefits of strong boundaries have more to do with people Tuosto K (2008) “Grunt truth” of embedded journalism: The new media/military
than process; when it comes to people, relationships are perceived relationship. Stanford Journal of International Relations; 10 (1): 20–31.
to be key.
Hypothesis on Time, Space and the Benefits of Weak Data availability
Boundaries: I speculate that the benefits of weak boundaries are Data sharing not applicable to this article as no data sets were generated or analysed
best realized by focussing on the temporal rather than the spatial during the current study.
dimension. An interactive process represents a strong symbolic
commitment to inclusiveness and democracy. In contrast, the Acknowledgements
organizational or physical embedding of requesters and providers The author is particularly grateful to Wendell Wallach for his help with concepts and
of evidence is comparatively more controversial. The second plain language suggestions and to Samuel Weiss Evans for a critical STS perspective. The
hypothesis, thus, is: the public perception of relevance is more author is very grateful to James Wilsdon for suggesting to streamline and clarifying the
shaped by knowledge of the temporal, rather than spatial (and approach. Comments from Michael Bordt, Paul Dufour, Scott Findlay, John Graham, Jeff
Kinder, Philippe Saner and Lorena Ziraldo further improved the text.
organizational) arrangements within science-policy interfaces. In
brief, the benefits of weak boundaries have more to do with
process than people; when it comes to knowledge, provenance is Additional information
perceived to be key. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing financial interests.

PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS | 2:16059 | DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.59 | www.palgrave-journals.com/palcomms 7

ARTICLE PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS | DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.59

Reprints and permission information is available at http://www.palgrave-journals.com/ This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
pal/authors/rights_and_permissions.html International License. The images or other third party material in this
article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise
How to cite this article: Saner M (2016) Temporal and spatial dimensions in the
management of scientific advice to governments. Palgrave Communications. 2:16059 in the credit line; if the material is not included under the Creative Commons license,
doi: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.59. users will need to obtain permission from the license holder to reproduce the material.
To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

8 PALGRAVE COMMUNICATIONS | 2:16059 | DOI: 10.1057/palcomms.2016.59 | www.palgrave-journals.com/palcomms