Table 1: Summary of panel recommendations.

Stage

Recommendations

Science Panel Sponsorship

A clear majority > 80% believes that a science peer view panel should be conducted independent of the sponsor of the peer review. When the sponsor of the peer review, whether that be a government agency, an NGO group, or an industry organization, controls the peer review, there is a clear potential for bias to be introduced at all levels of the peer review (recruitment, conduct, reporting).

Science Panel Recruitment and Selection

The results indicate a strong need for improving transparency regarding how scientists are selected to participate in science panels. Information that should be made available, include: 1) Specific inclusion criteria with respect to various metrics for expertise (e.g., degree, publication record, years of experience) used to define what is an expert for the topic under deliberations;

2) Specific exclusion criteria with respect to what constitutes a significant conflict of interest;

and 3) Any consideration of any additional factors used to achieve panel balance. Increase use of active recruiting methods to supplement passive recruiting methods.

Science Panel Deliberations

The results indicate that internal pressures that adversely affect panel deliberations (e.g., groupthink such as error amplification, cascade effects, group polarization, over emphasis of shared information) ad are prevalent. In addition, science panelists engaged in topics that garner a high degree of controversy (e.g., safety of genetically modified organisms, vaccines, pesticides, or tobacco; importance and cause of climate change, etc.) are more likely to encounter personal attacks based on their science positions than those who are engaged on less controversial topics (Batra, 2015; Rost, 2015).

Science Panel Reporting

The results indicate peer reviewers should have access to underlying raw data for the most critical studies in order to independently analyze results. Respondents also indicate a need for better transparency in reporting of the findings and recommendations of science panel deliberations and for conveying agreement across panelists. Clear definitions and procedures for determining consensus and conveying consensus metrics (e.g., Tastle and Wierman, 2007), are generally lacking. While unanimity is not required for science panel deliberations to be useful to decision makers, conveying sufficient information to stakeholders and decision makers regarding the degree of concordance amongst experts improves understanding of confidence in panel recommendations.