- Print Friendly - Help

CE’s column: Scientific ‘lens’ for govt decisions welcomed

May 2009

The appointment of a chief science advisor to the prime minister is good news for science in New Zealand.

The chief science advisor’s job will be to apply a scientific ‘lens’ to government policy and decision-making. Prime Minister John Key has named eminent paediatrics and human development researcher Professor Peter Gluckman of Auckland University as the first person to fill the role.

Providing scientific advice at such a high level in government will not only reinvigorate science in New Zealand, it is an important acknowledgement of the significant contribution science has to make to New Zealand’s economic prosperity.

The prime minister has said that science is at the heart of decision-making. The appointment of a chief science advisor supports the prime minister’s view that “New Zealand’s prosperity rests on our ability to make full use of the expertise that our scientists can contribute.”

The chief science advisor will guide ministers on policy options available to them in the light of the scientific understanding of any policy issue. While priorities are yet to be agreed with the prime minister, one area that Professor Gluckman is interested in addressing is improving the understanding by the media and the general public of how to interpret statistical information. He points out that poor understanding of statistical aspects of risk inevitably results in scare-mongering, alarmist headlines and a misperception of the level of risk involved.

For example, a recent paper states that the use of polycarbonate bottles for drinking water increased the excretion of bisphenol A by 69%. The number 69% reads like a large number and indicates a very significant increase, but in fact the excretion of bpa only went from 1.2 micrograms/g creatinine to 2 micrograms of bpa/g creatinine. Both of these numbers are actually very small and do not indicate any potential health risk at all – that is, a 69% increase over zilch is still zilch. This sort of reporting, citing percentage increases constantly exaggerates effect way beyond reality.

As New Zealand’s food safety regulator, NZFSA bases its decisions on robust risk analysis and the best available scientific evidence. Consumers sometimes find it difficult to accept that food safety is anything other than black or white, safe or not safe, but from a scientific perspective the notions of ‘risk’ and ‘safety’ are never clear cut. This makes it challenging for us to deliver clear messages. Most foods have some level of related risk. The way that food is handled throughout the food chain or in the home can influence whether or not a risk will be expressed.

Further, some chemical substances can be present in foods, such as low levels of chemical additives, but these will not result in a risk to human health if regulatory standards are adhered to.

All of these aspects of food safety and risks have quantitative elements. NZFSA welcomes the possibility of wider public understanding in this area.