Last week’s news that the role of European chief scientific adviser has been scrapped felt like a physical blow, shaking my faith that scientific information is valued in policymaking. This was not a decision about the post holder, the highly regarded Professor Anne Glover, who had already informed her employers that she would step down at the end of her term this year. It was a decision about the standing of scientific advice among the arsenal of influences buffeting politicians as they formulate European policy.

The appointment was a personal one from the president of the European Commission. Professor Glover was the first post-holder and had served President Barroso for three years. The adviser could therefore do two important things. The first was to harness the intellect of scientists across Europe, drawing in contributions relevant to European policymaking. The trick is to use the networks of scientists to gather intelligence quickly for high-level briefing. In this, Professor Glover excelled, providing far more than the scant resources of her office could deliver alone by tapping the generosity and expertise of thousands of scientists, officials and advisers in 28 countries.

The second was to build a relationship with the president in which, behind closed doors, she could explain the balance of available scientific evidence without the pressure of political or public opinion. What leader would not want access to such riches in this way?

Why is the role of an impartial and independent scientific adviser so important? European regulation has an impact upon us all, personally and commercially. And politicians, rightly, are influenced by a range of factors in its formation: ideology, public opinion, political positioning and relevant evidence. From farming to health to industry, there is relevant, available evidence that can be used to inform policy: use of pesticides on crops, and the associated welfare of bees; use of human tissue samples for medical research; the regulation of newly invented materials from coating buildings to harness the energy of the sun to coating your skin to prevent sunburn.

I would not wish decisions on any of these issues to be made solely based on polls of public opinion. I trust that the findings of scientific studies are considered and weighed alongside all other factors, taking into account their consistencies and conflict.

It’s not just me. Academic researchers and industries that depend on research and innovation are bound by regulations made in Europe. Many of them that I speak to in the UK are frustrated by the difficulty in getting scientific evidence on the European table. Do we really want to drive a new brain drain through sheer frustration of scientists in getting their voices heard in policymaking?

Beyond the interests of the UK, there are societal challenges that science can help address that need international co-ordination. The triumph of the European Space Agency’s Rosetta mission inspired us all last week. The challenges of ageing, energy, and feeding the planet cannot be solved alone. Professor Glover played a hugely important role in supporting collaborative scientific efforts across Europe and integrating them into political thinking.

There is a worrying background to this news. A number of NGOs, including Greenpeace, have been critical of the chief scientific adviser role and lobbied against it. While all opinions should be voiced and heard, it is worth noting that the resources and influence of such NGOs greatly outweigh that of the office of the chief scientific adviser. The evidence behind the positions of any group should be transparent and open to public scrutiny. Such a level playing field would hopefully allow for more constructive dialogue and policy.

When asked as president elect, Mr Juncker said “yes”, he would keep the very important role of chief scientific adviser. Later, his office said he valued independent scientific advice but would have to think about how to source it. I urge him and the 28 European science ministers to ensure that those with experience of the challenges of the role, notably Professor Glover, advise on how to establish permanently robust independent scientific advice in the commission.

Dr Sarah Main is director of the Campaign for Science and Engineering