title: Communication of Science Advice to Government.
abstract: There are various ways to construct good processes for soliciting and understanding science. Our critique of advisory models finds that a well-supported chief science advisor (CSA) best ensures the provision of deliberative, informal, and emergency advice to government. Alternatively, bias, increasingly manifest as science-based advocacy, can hinder communication, diminish credibility, and distort scientific evidence.
authors.affiliation: Department of Biology, Dalhousie University, 1355 Oxford Street, PO Box 15000, Halifax, NS B3H 4R2, Canada; Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, PO Box 1066 Blindern, NO-0316 Oslo, Norway; Department of Natural Sciences, University of Agder, PO Box 422, 4604 Kristiansand, Norway. Electronic address: jhutch@dal.ca.
authors.forename: Jeffrey A
authors.initials: JA
authors.lastname: Hutchings
authors.affiliation: Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, University of Oslo, PO Box 1066 Blindern, NO-0316 Oslo, Norway; Centre for Coastal Research, University of Agder, Norway; Institute of Marine Research, Nye Flødevigveien 20, 4817 His, Norway.
authors.forename: Nils Chr
authors.initials: NC
authors.lastname: Stenseth
mesh_terms: D026683:Advisory Committees / Q000592:standards; D003142:Communication; D003254:Consumer Advocacy; D006076:Government; D008119:Lobbying; D011050:Policy Making; D012586:Science / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*
keywords: advisory models; advocacy; bias; decision-makers; science policy