So what might a Science Integrity Charter look like?
CPSU's proposed Science Integrity Charter appears below. This proposed charter was devised in collaboration with key delegates and workplace leaders from a range of agencies including CSIRO, AIMS, ANSTO, BOM, DIISRTE, GBRMPA, DAFF, AAD and Geoscience Australia.
What do you think of the proposed charter? Join the debate by posting a comment below.
Science Integrity Charter for the Federal Public Sector (proposal by CPSU)
Science, innovation and research are fundamental to the economic, environmental and social needs and aspirations of the Australian community. The Federal public sector is trusted to discover, apply and communicate science in a frank and fearless manner, without political or commercial interference.
Science integrity ensures that the best research outcomes are achieved and that scientific advice is independent and verifiable. The Minister and the APSC agree to the following guiding principles of science integrity that apply to Federal public sector institutions and staff involved in science, research and innovation.
PRINCIPLES
1. Open communication and dissemination of scientific work
The default principle for public sector institutions is an open approach to the communication and dissemination of science, research and policy findings. Exceptions only apply where there are clearly demonstrable reasons to take a more constrained approach, for example to manage intellectual property for public benefit. Organisational policies and procedures must reflect this principle.
2. Encouragement of debate of science issues
Internal debate is essential to the open exchange of knowledge and ideas in the public sector. Staff must be encouraged, through agreed mechanisms, to debate science, research and policy, in order to improve outcomes and decision making. A shared responsibility exists with Government to encourage the external debate of science issues of public interest, ensuring knowledge and expertise is readily accessible to the community.
3. Contestability of science issues
Science in the public sector must continue to be tested rigorously and transparently, particularly through peer review and recognised consensus mechanisms. Public comment should always reflect science that has been tested, whilst acknowledging divergence and opportunities for further research. Staff should not make public comment beyond their area/s of expertise. Issues of public interest are contestable, with community inputs being critical to research/policy directions and outcomes.
4. Independence of public sector institutions and their staff
Public sector institutions must promote scientific independence in underpinning all research and policy formulation. Staff involved in science, research or innovation must not be subject to improper interference in the conduct of their work. Organisations shall have significant penalties in place for relevant stakeholders or staff who seek to undermine scientific independence. When making public comment, organisations and staff must provide scientific information and advice independent from political, commercial or other vested interests.
5. Effective collaboration
The community trusts public sector institutions to operate efficiently and maximise outcomes for public benefit. Genuine collaboration within and between institutions is most effective at the level of the researcher and/or policy formulator. It brings together science ideas with outcomes far exceeding transaction costs. Organisations must reflect this principle by enhancing trust and responsibilities in researchers/policy formulators and simplifying processes which discourage collaboration.
What do you think?
Join the debate by posting a comment below.
Comments(3)
Posted by:Nino - 31 Oct 2012, 12:25am @John
I agree @John. And lets highlight the: "Staff should not make public comment beyond their area/s of expertise."
Furthermore, science, research and policy findings and associated debate should always reflect reliability of published material and/or sources. "Source" being the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work. That is science & research 101.
Posted by:Derek - 30 Oct 2012, 5:24pm It would be good to include all science,research in all departments including social science.
Posted by:John - 18 Oct 2012, 5:42pm Principle 1 weakens this otherwise excellent charter with the "constrained approach". There have been public sector agencies in the past that have silenced their scientists ability to comment and then made official comments that directly contradicted what their own scientists wwere saying. Let's leave out the "constrained aproach". it weakens what we're trying to do.
@John I agree @John. And lets highlight the: "Staff should not make public comment beyond their area/s of expertise." Furthermore, science, research and policy findings and associated debate should always reflect reliability of published material and/or sources. "Source" being the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work. That is science & research 101.
It would be good to include all science,research in all departments including social science.
Principle 1 weakens this otherwise excellent charter with the "constrained approach". There have been public sector agencies in the past that have silenced their scientists ability to comment and then made official comments that directly contradicted what their own scientists wwere saying. Let's leave out the "constrained aproach". it weakens what we're trying to do.