The existing literature on bias in interest group access faces the challenge that there is often no clear benchmark for judging whether a given distribution of interest groups involved in policy making is biased. To tackle this challenge, we link two new data sets on registered European Union (EU) interest groups and membership of the advisory committees of the European Commission and examine the factors affecting selection to these committees. Our approach allows us to qualify the conclusions of the existing literature. We see that, even if business interests dominate advisory committees, they are not generally privileged over other group types in the selection processes and their degree of access varies considerably between policy areas. Instead, supranational interest groups enjoy selection privileges, which are particularly pronounced on permanent committees. Finally, we find some evidence that, even though lobbying budgets are important for getting access, their value varies across group types. In this way, our study has implications for future theory building on resource exchanges between interest group types and decision makers.

Objectives. In a democratic system, decision makers are accountable for the reasonableness of their decisions. This presumes (i) transparency, (ii) relevance of the decision criteria, (iii) revisability of decisions, and (iv) enforcement/regulation. We aim to (i) evaluate the extent to which drug reimbursement decision-making processes in different contexts meet these conditions and (ii) develop, starting from these findings, a framework for improving the transparency and the relevance of used decision criteria.

Methods. We evaluated the Austrian, Belgian, French, Dutch, and Swedish drug reimbursement systems. Based on this evaluation, we developed a framework for improving the transparency of drug reimbursement decision-making processes. It makes explicit the questions often addressed implicitly during decision-making processes as well as criteria for answering each question.

Results. Transparency of appraisal processes varies across systems. Justification with explicit criteria is generally limited. Although relevant criteria are similar across systems, their operationalization varies and their role in the appraisal process is not always clear. All systems seem to implicitly address five key questions, relating to (i) the medical, therapeutic, and societal need for treatment; (ii) preparedness to pay for treating the condition as a principle and (iii) for using the treatment under consideration; (iv) preparedness to pay more compared with alternatives; and (v) actual willingness to pay from public resources.

Conclusions. Transparency of the appraisal process can be improved by using an explicit decision framework. Systematic use of such a framework enhances consistency across decisions, allows justification of value judgments, and thus enhances legitimacy of societal decision making.

Interaction between farmers and researchers has benefits for both groups. Researchers gain an understanding of farmers' needs and the production system into which new techniques must fit; farmers are helped in adopting new techniques, and get insights into why some techniques are more successful than others. However, communication between farmers and researchers usually has been just from the university to the farmer. The recovery of information from farmers, integration of techniques into whole production systems, and the research priorities of farmers have not been very important to researchers.

An exception has been in sustainable agriculture, where some researchers have been asking farmers what they are doing and what they want the university to do, and spending time observing existing practices before they design research trials. Ideally, farmers and researchers interact as equals, sharing information and expertise. We present examples from California and New York that show that this approach is highly effective, and recommend policie s to expand on this approach in researchfunding, training of research and extension personnel, and the dissemination ofinformation. We also discuss practical ways to carry out those policies, drawn from the experiences of both university and private non-profit organizations.