  In this paper, we outline a new proposal for communicating scientific debate
to policymakers and other stakeholders in circumstances where there is
substantial disagreement within the scientific literature. In those
circumstances, it seems important to provide policy makers both with a useful,
balanced summary that is representative of opinion in the field large, and to
transparently communicate the actual evidence-base. To this end, we propose the
compilation of argument maps through a collective intelligence process; these
maps are then given to a wide sample of the relevant research community for
evaluation and summary opinion in an IGM style IGM style poll (see
igmchicago.org), which provides a representative view of opinion on the issue
at stake within the wider scientific community. Policymakers then receive these
two artefacts (map and poll) as their expert advice. Such a process would help
overcome the resource limitations of the traditional expert advice process,
while also providing greater balance by drawing on the expertise of researchers
beyond the leading proponents of particular theories within a field. And, the
actual evidence base would be transparent. In this paper, we present a pilot
project stepping through the map building component of such a policy advice
scheme. We detail process, products, and issues encountered by implementing in
the OVA (Online Visualisation of Argument tool, ova.arg-tech.org) an argument
map with sample evidence from the behavioural literature on communicating
probabilities, as a central issue within pandemic.
