Archive for category: ALLEA-News

Data, in its multitude of iterations and the way we make use of the information it contains, affects nearly all aspects of life today, yet rarely do we ever consider what the deeper implications at the governance level are. ALLEA joins forces with The Royal Society to organise the conference “Flourishing in a data-enabled society”.

The event will convene experts from academies across Europe and from different sectors in Buckinghamshire (UK) in November, to reflect on how society can best seize the opportunities and cope with the major challenges brought on by new uses of data.

The conference, hosted by The Royal Society at Chicheley Hall on 1-2 November 2018, seeks to elaborate a vision for a flourishing data-enabled Europe. In a set of keynotes, panel discussions and breakout sessions, the participants will consider current and future challenges from a variety of cross-disciplinary and cross-sectoral angles.

Breakout groups will enable representatives from different sectors, disciplines and geographical areas to make new connections and to discuss key questions in more detail, particularly exploring how different sectors and societies respond differently to these challenges.

Panels will explore how social, ethical and legal tensions arise across sectors, and how different sectors deal with them, so that data and data-enabled technologies can be used for human benefit. Experts will discuss ways to identify, respond and make the most out of the challenges of 21^st century data use. The discussions will furthermore address questions on how the use of data for public good might look like in Europe, how societies navigate the significant choices and dilemmas stemming from new data-enabled technologies, and if it is possible to consider a common European vision of the data-enabled society.

SAPEA (Science Advice for Policy by European Academies) has published its third Evidence Review Report titled Improving authorisation processes for plant protection products in Europe: a scientific perspective on the assessment of potential risks to human health. The report examines the methods and procedures for assessing potential harmful effects on human health from the use of Plant Protection Products (PPPs), and the ways in which the current authorisation processes could be improved from a scientific perspective. 

As an integral part of the Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM), SAPEA was asked to produce this Evidence Review Report as one of the documents that informs the Scientific Opinion of the European Commission Group of Chief Scientific Advisors, in response to a request from Commissioner Vytenis Andriukaitis.

The Evidence Review Report makes suggestions for further improvement in:

• The scientific data that underpin risk assessments
• The methods by which such data are analysed
• The ways in which assessment procedures are organised and tasks are allocated.

The report lists 26 Options, which were used to inform the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors’ Scientific Opinion, alongside a Social Sciences workshop on ‘Risk Perception and the Acceptability of Human Exposure to Pesticides’ (organised by SAPEA in 2017) and other sources of evidence.

To produce the Plant Protection Products Evidence Review Report, SAPEA brought together experts from across Europe, via the European Academy Networks. The experts formed a working group which was chaired by Professor Evangelia Ntzani (Associate Professor of Epidemiology, Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Greece, and Center for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Brown University School of Public Health, USA) and Professor David Coggon (Fellow of the UK Academy for Medical Sciences and Emeritus Professor of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Medical Research Council Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, UK).

Commissioner for Science, Research and Innovation, Carlos Moedas said:

“Food safety is non-negotiable for Europeans and a priority for the Commission. I am grateful to the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors and the SAPEA experts for the evidence based recommendations in this opinion. They aim to maintain and enhance our very high standards of food safety and environmental protection and to re-establish trust in scientific risk assessment.”

Professor Bernard Charpentier 2018 Chair of the SAPEA board said:

“This SAPEA Evidence Review Report demonstrates not only the outstanding knowledge of the experts nominated by European academies, learned societies, and academy networks, but also the experts’ exemplary commitment to the voluntary task of bringing the best and newest scientific knowledge into policy making.”

The SAPEA evidence review report is available at: www.sapea.info/plantprotectionproducts

A report on SAPEA’s Social Sciences Workshop ‘Risk Perception and the Acceptability of Human Exposure to Pesticides’ is available at: www.sapea.info/workshopriskperceptionacceptability/

The Group of Chief Scientific Advisors’ Opinion is available at: https://ec.europa.eu/research/sam/pdf/sam_ppp_report.pdf

The discussion paper focusses on how trust in expertise is placed or refused, highlights the affective dimension of epistemic trust, and discusses the danger of a ‘context collapse’ in digital communication. Experts from academies across Europe reflect on the current situation in which expertise and particularly research and science operate in societies today, and what has changed in relation to trust and trustworthiness.

ALLEA published the first issue of a new discussion paper series with the title “Loss of Trust? Loss of Trustworthiness? Truth and Expertise Today”. The paper addresses current discussions on the so-called “post-truth” era and draws attention to the questions of placing and refusing trust in expertise, and how expertise and scientific evidence are being contested in a changing landscape of communication.

Based on discussions of ALLEA’s international and interdisciplinary Working Group Truth, Trust and Expertise, the paper proposes to refocus the debate on the alleged loss of trust in expertise beyond people’s generic attitudes of trust and mistrust reflected in polls. In doing so, it delves into the question of how people place and refuse trust in expertise, and warns that trust in expertise is “valuable when placed in trustworthy agents and activities, but damaging and costly when misplaced”.

Particularly the “affective conditions in which trustworthiness is determined” should be more strongly taken into account. When people place trust in the information provided, they are “taking a chance in trusting someone” – putting themselves at risk and tolerating vulnerability. Judgements on an expert’s trustworthiness thus carry affective (as well as social and political) aspects that determine how people trust expertise.

For example, ”in order to understand a lack of trust in children’s vaccines”, the paper suggests that “we need to be aware of communication between experts and their audiences but also of the vulnerability that parents experience in conditions of a perceived or real uncertainty”.

The process of placing and refusing trust might also be different from place to place. “Experts and expertise are not monolithic, and we need to engage with the importance of cultural differentiation locally and around the world. Understandably, this can lead to situations where trust is refused not for lack of credibility or confidence, but due to shortcomings in the delivery of the affective and social aspects of judgements of trustworthiness”.

“Experts and expertise are not monolithic, and we need to engage with the importance of cultural differentiation locally and around the world. Understandably, this can lead to situations where trust is refused not for lack of credibility or confidence, but due to shortcomings in the delivery of the affective and social aspects of judgements of trustworthiness”.

Digital communication and the “context collapse”

In addition, digital communication has changed the relationship between expertise and the public. The digitisation of information has led to an idea of knowledge as something that can be searched and found on the internet. This online environment often provides “little clarity about who says what in which context and on the basis of what authority or expertise”. 

The paper warns that new landscapes of communication sometimes imply a “context collapse”: “in an online environment where everything is content, the truthfulness of text, image, and sound can often no longer be determined directly from the context. In addition, whether something is true or trustworthy on social media is far less important than whether it is liked, and what is liked has economic value without any account to expertise”.

Finally, another crucial point raised by the paper is that the importance of achieving transparency and accountability whilst still encouraging academic freedom needs to be thought through further. “The initial response to claims that experts were not trustworthy was to regulate them more closely. […] We need to know whether our accountability systems support the intelligent placing and refusing of trust”.

Download Publication

Download Press Release

SAPEA (Science Advice for Policy by European Academies) has published its second Evidence Review Report titled Novel Carbon Capture and Utilisation Technologies: research and climate aspects. The report explores whether Carbon Capture and Utilisation (CCU) technologies have the potential to contribute significantly to mitigating the effects of climate change.

As an integral part of the Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM), SAPEA was asked to produce this Evidence Review Report to inform the Scientific Opinion of the European Commission Group of Chief Scientific Advisors in response to a request from Commissioner Miguel Arias Cañete.

CCU technologies aim to extract carbon dioxide from either concentrated sources or directly from ambient air, and then use it as a raw material for carbon-containing products, such as fuels, chemical products, and building materials.

The report identifies a need for innovation in policy domains, and from systemic and technology perspectives. Some main recommendations in these areas are as follows:

1. Measures, regulations and incentives should be used to examine the energy system (including CCU) in a holistic, integrated, coordinated and transparent manner.
2. A systemic approach is required when evaluating the energy system and CCU systems, and further development is needed in stakeholder awareness and consistency of definitions.
3. Key technological challenges must be tackled in the areas of collection and purification of CO₂ from different sources, synthesis of green-hydrogen and technologies for carbon dioxide conversion to fuels and chemicals.

To produce the CCU Evidence Review Report, SAPEA brought together experts from across Europe, via the European Academy Networks. The experts formed a working group which was chaired by Professor Robert Schlögl (Fritz-Haber-Institute, Germany), and Professor Marco Mazzotti (ETH Zürich, Switzerland).  

Professor Bernard Charpentier 2018 Chair of the SAPEA board said:

“SAPEA is delighted to present its second Evidence Review report. This report is the result of hard work and commitment from our working group, who have shown dedication to explaining what current knowledge can tell us about potential future developments in the field of CO₂ management, energy and climate action. This topic is another example of successful collaboration with the Group of Chief Scientific Advisors and we are pleased to have had the opportunity to contribute to policy making in this important area.”

The SAPEA evidence review report is available at: www.sapea.info/carboncapture

A write-up from SAPEA’s expert workshop on Carbon Capture Utilisation is available at: www.sapea.info/workshopccu

The Group of Chief Scientific Advisors’ Opinion is available at: http://ec.europa.eu/research/sam/pdf/sam_ccu_report.pdf

Learn more at www.sapea.info