The Government decided to consider and issue, by the end of December 2009, a set of principles applying to the treatment of independent scientific advice provided to Government. This followed the Home Secretary's dismissal of Professor David Nutt as chairman of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs.

Audits provide essential accountability and transparency over government programs. Given the current challenges facing governments and their programs, the oversight provided through auditing is more critical than ever. Government auditing provides the objective analysis and information needed to make the decisions necessary to help create a better future. The professional standards presented in this 2018 revision of Government Auditing Standards (known as the Yellow Book) provide a framework for performing high-quality audit work with competence, integrity, objectivity, and independence to provide accountability and to help improve government operations and services. These standards, commonly referred to as generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS), provide the foundation for government auditors to lead by example in the areas of independence, transparency, accountability, and quality through the audit process. This revision contains major changes from, and supersedes, the 2011 revision.

Following a two-year absence the Science and Technology Committee was re-formed in October 2009 to conduct cross-departmental scrutiny of science and technology. This report summarises the Committee's work of this session. It also reviews the historical landscape of science scrutiny in Parliament across the work of predecessor committees, and documents the impacts they have had on policy and the culture of scientific debate within Westminster. The Committee highlight several inquiries and reports that have had significant impact in informing legislative decisions and holding government to the standard of evidence based policy making.

On cover and title page: House, committees of the whole House, general committees and select committees

The integrity of knowledge that emerges from research is based on individual and collective adherence to core values of objectivity, honesty, openness, fairness, accountability, and stewardship. Integrity in science means that the organizations in which research is conducted encourage those involved to exemplify these values in every step of the research process. Understanding the dynamics that support â€" or distort â€" practices that uphold the integrity of research by all participants ensures that the research enterprise advances knowledge. The 1992 report Responsible Science: Ensuring the Integrity of the Research Process evaluated issues related to scientific responsibility and the conduct of research. It provided a valuable service in describing and analyzing a very complicated set of issues, and has served as a crucial basis for thinking about research integrity for more than two decades. However, as experience has accumulated with various forms of research misconduct, detrimental research practices, and other forms of misconduct, as subsequent empirical research has revealed more about the nature of scientific misconduct, and because technological and social changes have altered the environment in which science is conducted, it is clear that the framework established more than two decades ago needs to be updated. Responsible Science served as a valuable benchmark to set the context for this most recent analysis and to help guide the committee's thought process. Fostering Integrity in Research identifies best practices in research and recommends practical options for discouraging and addressing research misconduct and detrimental research practices.

In this report, the Science and Technology Committee examines how scientific advice and evidence is used in national emergencies, when the Government and scientific advisory system are put under great pressure to deal with atypical situations. The inquiry focused on four case studies: (i) the 2009-10 H1N1 influenza pandemic (swine flu); (ii) the April 2010 volcanic ash disruption; (iii) space weather; and (iv) cyber attacks. While science is used effectively to aid responses to emergencies, the detachment of the Government Chief Scientific Adviser (GCSA) from the National Risk Assessment (NRA) - the key process of risk evaluation carried out by the Cabinet Office - is a serious concern. The Committee recommends that the NRA should not be signed off until the GCSA is satisfied that all risks requiring scientific input and judgements have been properly considered. A new independent scientific advisory committee should be set up to advise the Cabinet on risk assessment and review the NRA. The Icelandic volcanic eruption in April 2010 is a stark example of the lack of scientific input in risk assessment: the risk of disruption to aviation caused by a natural disaster was dropped from the assessment process in 2009, despite warnings from earth scientists. There are concerns over how risk was communicated to the public during the 2009-10 swine flu pandemic are raised in the report, with sensationalised media reporting about the projected deaths from swine flu. The Scientific Advisory Groups in Emergencies, set up to advise government during emergencies, were found to work in an unnecessarily secretive way.

work of the Committee In 2008-09 : First report of session 2009-10, report, together with formal minutes, and written Evidence

The risks and benefits of participating in screening programmes, for conditions and diseases like cancer, are not consistently communicated by either the NHS or private health care providers, the Science and Technology Committee has warned in a new report. It is calling on the Government to ensure that a standardised process to produce screening information is introduced and that better communications training is provided to health care professionals. A recently revised breast cancer screening leaflet for the 50-70 age group - with its more explicit focus on helping women make an 'informed choice' about whether screening is right for them - marks a step in the right direction. However, the inquiry found that the principles followed to revise this leaflet have not been applied to the communications developed by other NHS screening programmes. The Committee recommends that steps are immediately taken by the Government's advisor on screening, the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC), to devise and implement a standard process for producing information that facilitates informed choice. It also recommends a clarification of what 'informed choice' means for potential screening participants so that different screening programmes can be more effectively evaluated on their delivery of it. MPs are also calling on the Office for National Statistics to validate the statistics presented in NHS screening information to resolve disagreement and confusion over their accuracy.

Geoengineering describes activities specifically and deliberately designed to effect a change in the global climate with the aim of minimising or reversing anthropogenic climate change. The Committee gives three reasons why they believe regulation is needed. First, in the future some geoengineering techniques may allow a single country to unilaterally affect the climate. Second, some geoengineering testing is already underway. Third, we may need geoengineering in the event of a failure to reduce greenhouse gases we are faced with highly disruptive climate change. The Committee does not call for an international treaty but for the groundwork for regulatory arrangements to begin. The UN is the route by which, eventually, they envisage the regulatory framework operating but first the UK and other governments need to push geoengineering up the international agenda and get processes moving