|
Brussels
Declaration: 20 Principles To Help Govern Evidence-Based Decision
Making (EBDM)
Statement
Criticized For Lacking Safeguards Against Corporate Interests
The
Brussels Declaration, a set of 20 principles, is the culmination in
2017 of an independent 5-year initiative questioning the robustness of
science-led policymaking around the world.
The
private group responsible for the initiative believes that bad
government policies, presumably not evidence-based, are causing public
harm. To help ameliorate this situation, a text was adopted during a
symposium at the annual meeting of the American Association for the
Advancement of Science. It articulated 20 principles to help improve
the process of evidence based decision making. These 20 principles are
the core of the Brussels Declaration (See below).
Purpose
In a statement on EuroScientist where the declaration
was published, the authors assert that the sole purpose of the
declaration “…is to boost understanding of how power operates and to
explain why evidence plus dialogue rarely equals (as one might expect)
good decisions and laws. Above all, we make a case for a broad,
multi-stakeholder and multi-disciplinary approach promoting greater
integrity and accountability. Our main recommendation for promoting
public dialogue and better understanding is not only greater
transparency and scrutiny, but genuine inclusivity.”
Positive Elements
The Brussels Declaration contains many sound ideas that
should shape the conduct of scientists and others involved in the
attempts to make good use of science in developing public policy. For
example, one of the principles is that policy makers should be willing
to justify decisions particularly when they deviate from independent
scientific advice. Mainstream science groups have appeared in support
of the Declaration, however, several epidemiologists involved with
policy have said they were unaware of it.
The
positive elements of the Declaration have not dissuaded a group of
British scientists from calling into question the real intent of the
Declaration. For example, one of the principles that has raised
concern states “Industry is an investor in knowledge generation and
science and has every right to have its voice heard”.
In a paper in Tobacco Control Jim McCambridge at
York University and his colleagues Mike Daube and
Martin McKee have asked skeptically in their title “Brussels
Declaration: a vehicle for the advancement of tobacco and alcohol
industry interests at the science/policy interface?”
Based on an analysis of the Declaration and the process
used to create it, McCambridge and colleagues became suspicious that
the real intent of the document might not be what it seems and that it
could be part of a global strategy by industry, especially the tobacco
and alcohol industries, to shape the making of science policy and the
governance of research more generally. They list five issues which
raise concern about how seriously the Declaration should be taken.
Five Issues
First,
they question the process for developing the Declaration such as how
the participants were selected, who actually attended the events
leading up to the Declaration, how much involvement they had in the
final Declaration, and how the costs of development were met.
Second,
because the Declaration calls for inclusivity, it has the potential to
be appealing in a democratic context. However, a call for inclusivity
undermines the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control which excludes
tobacco companies from involvement in public health policy making.
Third,
there is a need to better understand the “corporate determinants of
health”. Scientists should be vigilant when they interact with
industry personnel at meetings and other events lest their names and
reputations be misused.
Fourth,
other recent developments, such as the substantial investment by
Phillip Morris International in a ‘Foundation for a Smoke-Free World,
have called into question how industry may be operating in the
research and science policy arenas to satisfy its global political
strategies.
Fifth,
the Declaration should be examined to determine how much it ultimately
succeeds as “an instrument of influence” on conflicts of interest, on
the evaluation of science, and on public health and science policies.
Conclusions
In
the abstract to their paper, McCambridge and colleagues say “The case
for policies to be based on evidence appeared to gain a major boost
with the publication of the Brussels Declaration, apparently with
support from many leading scientists and institutions…there are major
concerns about how it was developed, and in particular, the extensive
involvement of tobacco and alcohol industry actors…The process of
developing the Declaration successfully involved science advisors,
other senior officials in governments and politicians in its
preparation. Despite this, the final Declaration fails to address the
need for safeguards to protect the integrity of science or policy from
corporate interests…the Declaration offers potential to serve as a
vehicle for advancing the vested interests of corporate sectors in
public policymaking…”
The
20 principles of the Declaration are reprinted below. To view the full
Declaration, including the Preamble, visit:
https://bit.ly/2nr3vTg ■
|