From Knowledge to Decisions: How Should Different Sectors of SETAC Interact?

Jen Lynch, SETAC

A forum at the SETAC Europe 34th Annual Meeting this past May in Seville, Spain, explored the role SETAC should play in the interface between science and policy. There has been a great deal of debate in the community, particularly over the past year, around conflicts of interest, personal and professional agendas, and trust (or lack thereof) when it comes to formally engaging with science policy. In his introductory remarks, Executive Director Bart Bosveld invoked Chatham House rules, which means that this article will not attribute any comments directly to the panelists or the audience members who contributed to the conversation. The panelists reflected the diversity of sectors and career-levels inherent to SETAC, with voices from students, business, academia, government and nongovernmental organizations leading the discussion.

The panel started by asking a panelist to define conflict of interest (COI) and outline their perceptions of bias. The panelists clearly did not all agree on a definition of COI or bias in science, so that’s an area that needs further development at SETAC as well as in the scientific community at large, and it was obviously beyond the scope of a one-hour panel discussion. Noting that most focus is typically on personal COI – financial, personal or professional gain – the panel shifted gears and set their sights on structural conflict of interest, which frankly, in a capitalist society is no easy fix. As many of the panelists themselves admitted, scientists from all sectors face financial and organizational pressures that determine what science is being conducted at their respective institutions – pressure to procure funding, get published, or prioritize “hot topics” in research and development. There was general acknowledgement on the panel that transparency around these pressures is paramount to establishing trust but disagreement about how these kinds of fiscal and institutional conflicts could or should be mitigated.

After acknowledging the barriers to respectful disagreement and spotlighting the problems that arise when one engages only with echo chambers or professional “bubbles,” the panelists put forward the following ideas:

• Science-informed policy. One panelist astutely noted that if the scientist is removed from policy debates, discussions cease to be science-informed – they become political.
• Transparency. Transparency was hailed as the most evident way to establish trust. It was also noted that transparency could be taken further than just disclosure.
• Mitigation Measures. One panelist noted the value of relying on reproducibility, such as using established methods and good laboratory practices, to corroborate results.
• Grace and vigilance. It requires grace to look past historical transgressions and vigilance to accept transparency and mitigation measures. While yes, there should be accountability when errors are made, it is equally important to offer space and empathy for honest mistakes.
• Self-awareness. Recognizing our own short-comings and biases is not easy, but in doing so, we are more able to extend empathy and compassion.

Some SETAC-specific questions and discussions arose during the panel, which we will highlight and respond to here. Before we get into the specifics, a generalist question was put forward: “Does SETAC function as it was intended (upon its foundation)?”

I think that the panelists and the audience truly believe it does and can, but there was also open criticism of scientists between some sectors. One person noted that there is a tendency to simplify complex environmental problems, not in any one sector, but as humans. The problems that SETAC scientists are working to solve are massive and messy, which can be overwhelming. However, removing perspectives and reducing the approach is not helpful and won’t advance progress. Just as there is no one surefire answer to the environmental problems we face, there is no good guy versus bad guy dichotomy across sectors; it is far better to work together.

During the discussion, an audience member raised questions about the approach that SETAC has taken in engaging with policy. Another questioned how ethical concerns are raised at SETAC. To address the later, the audience was reminded that complaints can be raised directly to compliance officers whose contact is listed online as well as in the meeting program book, and they will be handled according to SETAC’s Problem Resolution Process and Whistleblower Policy. As for how SETAC engages with policy, SETAC governance typically appoints a panel to advise a representative to the external entity or entities. The panel is carefully selected from those who apply to the open call, consistent with SETAC’s founding principles (i.e., technical competency and science-based objectivity) and intentionally comprises individuals across disciplines, who are invested stakeholders.

Back to the topic at hand, how should the various legs of SETAC interact to support SETAC’s vision of Environmental Quality Through Science®?

Perhaps SETAC as a society may want to define COI and acceptable mitigation measures to help build trust amongst the various sectors within its membership. All members are obviously interested in the vision and mission of SETAC and should hold the founding principles and values dear; a lot of progress has been made through relying on them.

Author’s contact: [email protected]