Scientific Advisory Committees

The UN established an Independent Scientific Panel on AI. What should be its goals and structure? In Sep 2024, the UN General Assembly adopted the Global Digital Compact, which mandated the creation of the Independent Scientific Panel on AI and the Global Dialogue on AI Governance. 🔭 The Simon Institute for Longterm Governance’s recommendations for the Panel (PDF below) aim at balancing inclusivity, scientific rigor, and practical efficiency by creating three sub-parts. 1️⃣ National focal points: all Member States should be able to join the Panel, with one government-designated expert as a focal point. Non-Member States can also participate as Observers. 2️⃣ Scientific Steering Committee + Working Groups: the Committee would be a senior expert group providing oversight to the Panel’s scientific work. Experts would be nominated by Member States. The Working Groups, guided by the Committee, would perform the research and drafting. Simon Institute recommends WGs on Capabilities & Risks, Macroeconomics, SDGs, Foresight & Forecasting, and a Global AI Policy Observatory. 3️⃣ Secretariat: an administrative body to coordinate logistics, comms, and budgeting. Could be independently-financed or under the UN Office for Digital and Emerging Technologies. I like this approach because it ensures both inclusivity and scientific rigor are covered while separating these functions to dedicated groups that can accomplish them effectively. A common shortcoming of such panels is trying to accomplish everything with a single body, limiting the depth or speed of its scientific analysis or keeping it too closed or unrepresentative. 🏛️ Mila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence Institute’s recommendations for the Panel (link in comments) follow similar principles of scientific assessment & independence, political legitimacy & inclusion, and policy relevance. They also recommend a Scientific Steering Committee and Working Groups, emphasizing the need for a WG on AI Safety. They look at analogous examples to identify design options, which highlight the shortcomings I mentioned above: 1️⃣ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: widely recognized, inclusive, independent, and rigorous, but very slow. Assessments take 5-7 years. 2️⃣ EU’s Scientific Advice Mechanism: covers a broad range of scientific topics but only on questions asked by the EU Commission, maximizing policy relevance. To cover those many topics, it works with a distributed scientific network. 3️⃣ International AI Safety Report: with a multidisciplinary group of experts, it put together a rigorous, comprehensive report in ~1 year. Challenge is ensuring broad representation (it had experts from various countries but was commissioned exclusively by the UK government). The UN Scientific Panel on AI is an excellent opportunity for international cooperation on AI – I hope it takes into account the recommendations above.

What happens when major public health decisions are made without scientists at the table? In the United States, a recent policy shift removed COVID-19 vaccine recommendations for healthy children and pregnant women, without consulting its Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the independent expert body that typically develops these recommendations. Bypassing established health processes could lead to real harm. These protocols are grounded in evidence, expert oversight, and safety checks designed to prevent mistakes and protect people. When they’re ignored, the risk of flawed or unsafe health decisions increases, public confusion grows, and trust in the system weakens. This can result in poor outcomes for individuals and entire communities alike. 💡Why does process matter? ACIP ensures vaccine guidance is: - Evidence-based: recommendations are grounded in rigorous scientific evaluation. - Transparent: meetings are open to the public and streamed online. - Inclusive: consumer representatives bring in perspectives from the community. - Participatory: the public can submit comments and request to speak. These safeguards are essential for maintaining credibility and public confidence in health recommendations. 🌎 Global Perspective Many countries like the UK, Germany, France, and Canada, rely on similar expert advisory bodies known as National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAGs) to guide vaccine policy. These groups play a critical role in ensuring that health decisions are informed by the best available evidence and tailored to their populations’ needs. By systematically evaluating data in the local context, NITAGs help shape effective and trusted immunization policies, to protect their populations. 🚨The Implications of Bypassing Established Processes When decisions are made without input from established advisory committees: - Public trust can erode, leading to lower vaccine uptake. - Healthcare providers may face uncertainty, affecting patient care. - Vulnerable populations may be left unprotected, increasing outbreak risk. - Insurance coverage could be disrupted, leaving people with out-of-pocket costs. 🗒️ In Summary Maintaining robust, transparent, and inclusive procedures is essential to ensuring effective, trusted public health guidance. Trust is built through transparency. Strong public health depends on strong, inclusive processes. Here is a cartoon I drew recently on what NITAGs do. #globalhealth #NITAG #vaccines #ACIP #immunization

The Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) is an international scientific expert committee that is administered jointly by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). It has been meeting since 1956, initially to evaluate the safety of food additives. Its work now also includes the evaluation of contaminants, naturally occurring toxicants and residues of veterinary drugs in food. Purpose JECFA serves as an independent scientific expert committee which performs risk assessments and provides advice to FAO, WHO and the member countries of both organizations, as well as to the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC). The requests for scientific advice are for the main part channelled through the subsidiary bodies of the CAC in their work to develop international food standards and guidelines under the Joint FAO/WHO Food Standards Programme. The advice to CAC on food additives, contaminants and naturally occurring toxicants is normally provided to the Codex Committee on Food Additives (CCFA) and to the Codex Committee on Contaminants in food (CCCF), and advice on residues of veterinary drugs to the Codex Committee on Residues of Veterinary Drugs in Food (CCRVDF). All countries need to have access to reliable risk assessment of chemicals in food, but not all have the expertise and funds available to carry out separate risk assessments on large numbers of chemicals. JECFA performs a vital role in providing a reliable and independent source of expert advice in the international setting, thus contributing to the setting of standards on a global scale for the health protection of all consumers and for ensuring fair practices in the trade of safe food. Some countries use information from JECFA in the establishment of national food safety control programmes and CCFA, CCCF and CCRVDF develop standards based on evaluations by JECFA. A particularly important aspect of the work of Codex Committees results from the agreement, as a result of the Uruguay Round in which the World Trade Organization (WTO) succeeded the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, that scientific, risk-based standards established by the Codex Alimentarius Commission should be employed under terms of the Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) agreement to address fair trade practices. Governments wishing to argue particular cases at WTO are likely, therefore, to turn increasingly to Codex, and through Codex to JECFA and other scientific bodies, for advice on their own legislation.

By now it should be no surprise to anyone that workers and programs that are part of the U.S. Federal Government are being eliminated arbitrarily. There is no business case to be made for eliminating most of the programs that have been cut out. The National Advisory Committee on Microbiological Criteria for Foods (NACMCF) and the National Advisory Committee on Meat and Poultry Inspection (NACMPI) that have both been eliminated are relatively low-cost advisory bodies that provide significant benefits to public health and food safety. Here are some relevant points to consider: 1. Both committees operate under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), which ensures transparency and cost-efficiency. Members often serve as non-compensated special government employees, minimizing direct costs. (A) NACMCF provides scientific advice on microbiological criteria, helping prevent foodborne illnesses caused by pathogens like Salmonella, E. coli, and Listeria. These illnesses cost the U.S. economy billions annually in healthcare expenses and lost productivity.   (B) NACMPI ensures the safety of meat and poultry products, which are critical components of the American diet. Its recommendations help reduce contamination risks and improve inspection protocols. 2. Preventing foodborne illness outbreaks directly contributes to direct cost savings to businesses, cost of recalls, costs from legal liabilities, and healthcare. For example, the annual economic burden of foodborne illnesses in the U.S. is estimated at $15.6 billion. Even a small reduction in outbreaks due to these committees' work justifies their operating costs by orders of magnitude above the costs. 3. The committees enhance trust in the U.S. food supply, which is vital for both domestic consumption and international trade. A loss of confidence could lead to reduced demand and economic losses for the food industry. 4. Both committees provide guidance on emerging technologies, such as genomic testing and automation in inspections, ensuring that the U.S. remains a leader in food safety innovation. Both committees are vital to public health because they provide impartial, science-based recommendations that guide federal food safety policies and are made up of centuries of experience and expertise spanning the range of operations and expertise, and scientific knowhow. Trust is a vital factor when selling to consumers. When trust is lost the real losers in this game are anyone and everyone who consumes food.