It is not just that they would be independent of industry, though that is indeed important. They would also approach issues from different points of view and with different, relevant experiences, complementing those of scientists involved in exploiting the technology. Yet the results of much of the work carried out by industry, including experiments designed to test the safety of new products, have been neither peer-reviewed nor published, but have nevertheless been accepted by the advisory committees in approvals of field trials and commercial releases. It is very important for the Government to ensure that scientific advisory committees base their recommendations on careful scrutiny of all relevant evidence on both sides of the debate, whether published or not. 4.2 Confidentiality can be invoked as a means of avoiding proper scrutiny.
Companies often do, however, have legitimate concerns about commercially sensitive information.
In such cases, evidence should be provided to the members of the advisory committee under conditions of strict confidentiality. Under no circumstances should a new process or product be authorised if the committee has been denied access to material it considered important. Except where the committee agrees that confidentiality is appropriate, all evidence should be made publicly available so that as many people as possible are able to comment on it. In this way, expertise beyond that possessed by the members of the committee can be brought into service.