Blogs

New Zealand has defined 10 National Science Challenges after a process of consultation and development, culminating in cabinet agreement.  The intention is to define large-scale goals, focus investment and foster collaboration.  The Challenges are:.../

•     Aging well – harnessing science to sustain health and wellbeing into the later years of life
•     A better start – improving the potential of young New Zealanders to have a healthy and successful life
•     Healthier lives – research to reduce the burden of major New Zealand health problems
•     High value nutrition – developing high value foods with validated health benefits
•     New Zealand’s biological heritage – protecting and managing our biodiversity, improving our biosecurity, and enhancing our resilience to harmful organisms
•     Our land and water  – Research to enhance primary sector production and productivity while maintaining and improving our land and water quality for future generations
•     Life in a changing ocean – understanding how we can exploit our marine resources within environmental and biological constraints
•     The deep south – understanding the role of the Antarctic and the Southern Ocean in determining our climate and our future environment
•     Science for technological innovation – enhancing the capacity of New Zealand to use physical and engineering sciences for economic growth
•     Resilience to nature’s challenges – research into enhancing our resilience to natural disasters

The Cambridge University Centre for Science and Policy (CSaP) website is worth a look - a wide range of research, professional development and events bringing scientists and policymakers together.  Regular newsletters.

Interesting post on the Nature News Blog on the first meeting of a Global Science Council - what it may become is unclear, but discussion of merit [peer] review.  A number of principles were identified, as follows:

• Expert Assessment -- Collectively, reviewers should have the appropriate knowledge and expertise to assess the proposal both at the level of the broad context of the research field(s) to which it contributes and with respect to the specific objectives and methodology. Reviewers should be selected according to clear criteria.
• Transparency -- Decisions must be based on clearly described rules, procedures and evaluation criteria that are published a priori. Applicants should receive appropriate feedback on the evaluation of their proposal.
• Impartiality -- Proposals must be assessed fairly and on their merit. Conflicts of interest must be declared and managed according to defined, published processes.
• Appropriateness -- The review process should be consistent with the nature of the call, with the research area addressed, and in proportion to the investment and complexity of the work.
• Confidentiality -- All proposals, including related data, intellectual property and other documents, must be treated in confidence by reviewers and organizations involved in the review process.
• Integrity and Ethical Consideration -- Ethics and integrity are paramount to the review process 

Interesting paper in PLoS One from Sutherland et al on the research agenda for science policy.  Mainly UK emphasis, but some US and Australian links. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0031824

The UK Parliament's House of Lords Science and Technology Committee has produced a report on the role of UK government departments' Chief Scientific Advisers.