This programme brings together researchers from a wide variety of academic disciplines to explore similarities and differences in their approaches to evidence. It is supporting development of a number of distinct specialist strands, while at the same time attempting to weave these together into a single integrated whole by emphasising and developing common intellectual ground. By establishing a community of interest across a very broad field, it aims to bring cohesion and interaction to the currently fragmented activities of different research groups.

The ultimate aim is to advance human understanding, decision-making and risk management across a wide variety of academic and practical activities. This will be achieved through improved treatment of evidence, inference and enquiry, and through cross-disciplinary transfer of understanding, insight and good practice.

• Conceptual and methodological advances in Evidence Science.
• Improved understanding of human biases in handling evidence.
• Explicit understanding of the special features of evidence in different disciplines.
• Identification and improved handling of common features of evidence across disciplines.
• Decision aids for evidence analysis.

Modern technology allows for the collection of vast quantities of data of many different kinds, but the technology for combining, comparing,linking and interpreting all this information - so turning it from information to evidence - is almost non-existent. Although interpretation of evidence is as fundamental to all human enquiry as Aristotelian logic, and just as ancient, there has generally been little interest displayed in generic aspects of evidential reasoning.

Different disciplines tend to conceive of and use evidence in different ways, often with little intellectual examination, nor any conception that there might be an underlying generally applicable rational foundation. Unintelligent use of evidence is widespread and damaging. Even in the face of terrorist threats, training and practice in intelligence analysis largely ignore fundamental principles. In law enforcement there is scant appreciation of the import of missing evidence, while new evidence is sought to try and firm up a currently favoured theory, rather than to discriminate between credible alternatives. In forensic science, distinct types of evidence such as DNA, fingerprints, fibres, etc. are typically handled by different teams using different specialist methods, rather than integrated under a "substance-blind" approach. Similar inadequacies pervade decision-making in politics, medicine, public health, and commerce.

Understanding the nature and impact of evidence is a non-trivial and often counter-intuitive task. Evidence never speaks for itself, but has to be interpreted through the filters of models, assumptions and analyses. Generic attributes of evidence include accuracy, credibility, objectivity, relevance, provenance and weight. An item of evidence may corroborate another, or conflict with it, or explain away its apparent message. Items of evidence and hypotheses can form complex interrelated chains or webs, outstripping unaided human comprehension. Any general theory of evidence has to explicate and
analyse such issues.

A raft of activities is being organised, aimed at cementing together the variety of projects and personnel involved in this programme into a coherent evidence community, and disseminating the fruits of the research programme more widely. In addition to standard mechanisms (journal articles and books, presentations at national and international conferences), these include:

• Lectures and masterclasses
• Specialist and inter-disciplinary seminars
• Study circles
• Panel discussions
• Internal workshops
• Open conferences

• Public debates
• Research report series and archive
• Software and decision-aids
• Dedicated interactive website
• E-mail circulation list