Electing the Experts? An Examination of the Potential for Elected Scientific Advisors in the UK

In light of recent challenges, in the UK and elsewhere, to the role of knowledge, scientists and academics within governance and public policy-making, increasing attention has been given to identifying how such ‘experts’ may be legitimated within a political world that is sometimes misleadingly described as being ‘post-truth’ or ‘post-factual’. This paper seeks to contribute to this debate through examining the potential for establishing a system of democratically elected scientific advisors to publicly oversee the management and provision of scientific and academic policy advice and evidence within the policy process. Questions to be considered include: What are the precedents for such a system and how have they functioned in practice? At which level of governance would this system be appropriate? How would such a system affect the quality of advice and evidence? How likely is such a system to enhance perceptions of legitimacy among the general public? Analysis of similar precedents in public services, such as elected police commissioners, will be referenced with insights also being drawn from current scientific advisory regimes within the UK through semi-structured interviews with participants. It is hoped that this study will demonstrate the potential utility of a system of elected scientific advisors for enhancing the ‘input’ legitimacy of scientists and academics without compromising the ‘output’ legitimacy that is their present contribution to policy outcomes. Such a result would have the effect of renegotiating a more secure and transparent role for scientists and academics in the public policy process that may go some way to restoring confidence in such figures in the eyes of the general public.