The UK Government’s COVID-19 Policy: What Does “Guided by the Science” Mean in Practice?

Cairney, Paul

doi:10.3389/fpos.2021.624068

Cited by 36 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… 2–4 These scientists have been faced with numerous challenges, including working under significant time constraints to produce evidence as quickly as possible, 5 6 and taking on new roles, such as interacting with the media and the public or giving policy recommendations in unprecedented ways, and being in the spotlight. While scientists have been able to make some impact on policy since the start of the pandemic in European countries, 7–9 the complex relationship between scientists and governments during this pandemic has been widely discussed. There have been debates about the boundaries, scope and neutrality of the role of scientific advisors, which highlighted the complexity of the advisory process, with some questioning whether it is even possible for scientists to provide value-free recommendations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Following the science? Views from scientists on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study in five European countries

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionIn order to tackle the pandemic, governments have established various types of advisory boards to provide evidence and recommendations to policy makers. Scientists working on these boards have faced many challenges, including working under significant time constraints to produce ‘evidence’ as quickly as possible. However, their voices are still largely missing in the discussion. This study explores the views and experiences of scientists working on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the aim to learn lessons for future pandemic management and preparedness.MethodsWe conducted online video or telephone semi-structured interviews between December 2020 and April 2021 with 21 scientists with an official government advisory role during the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium, the Netherlands, UK, Sweden and Germany. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed and analysed using a combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis techniques.ResultsScientists viewed the initial focus on biomedically oriented work during the pandemic as somewhat one-dimensional, but also highlighted difficulties of working in an interdisciplinary way. They found it difficult at times to ensure that the evidence is understood and taken on board by governments. They found themselves taking on new roles, the boundaries of which were not clearly defined. Consequently, they were often perceived and treated as a public figure.ConclusionScientists working on advisory boards in European countries faced similar challenges, highlighting key lessons to be learnt. Future pandemic preparedness efforts should focus on building interdisciplinary collaboration through development of scientists’ skills and appropriate infrastructure; ensuring transparency in how boards operate; defining and protecting the boundaries of the scientific advisor role; and supporting scientists to inform the public in the fight against disinformation, while dealing with potential hostile reactions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Following the science? Views from scientists on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study in five European countries

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Atkinson et al ( 2020 ) have analysed the same events using different evidence, namely interviews with panels of witnesses, and highlight some different issues: the appropriate mix of expertise, and the choice between centralized and decentralized responses. Cairney ( 2020 , 2021 ) has analysed the same sequence of events from a political science perspective. To keep the present paper focused and concise, I will not include comparisons between my reflections and those of others.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In analysing this case, I have been particularly influenced by analyses of the interplay of science and values in other cases byDouglas (2009),Steele (2012),John (2015),Lewens (2019) and the contributors toElliott and Richards (2017) Atkinson et al (2020). have analysed the same events using different evidence, namely interviews with panels of witnesses, and highlight some different issues: the appropriate mix of expertise, and the choice between centralized and decentralized responses Cairney (2020Cairney ( , 2021. has analysed the same sequence of events from a political science perspective.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Science and policy in extremis: the UK’s initial response to COVID-19

Birch

2021

Euro Jnl Phil Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drawing on the SAGE minutes and other documents, I consider the wider lessons for norms of scientific advising that can be learned from the UK’s initial response to coronavirus in the period January–March 2020, when an initial strategy that planned to avoid total suppression of transmission was abruptly replaced by an aggressive suppression strategy. I introduce a distinction between “normatively light advice”, in which no specific policy option is recommended, and “normatively heavy advice” that does make an explicit recommendation. I argue that, although scientific advisers should avoid normatively heavy advice in normal times in order to facilitate democratic accountability, this norm can be permissibly overridden in situations of grave emergency. SAGE’s major mistake in early 2020 was not that of endorsing a particular strategy, nor that of being insufficiently precautionary, but that of relying too heavily on a specific set of “reasonable worst-case” planning assumptions. I formulate some proposals that assign a more circumscribed role to “worst-case” thinking in emergency planning. In an epilogue, I consider what the implications of my proposals would have been for the UK’s response to the “second wave” of late 2020.

show abstract

“…In this context, an article published by policy theorist Paul Cairney, drawing on an analysis of SAGE meeting SCIENCE ADVICE IN THE UK minutes, has explored how minister-adviser relationships are characterised by an insider/ outside dynamic, conditional on the willingness of advisers to follow the "rules of the game" within a wider political and policymaking context. This means that, in practice, advice relationships are limited to a small group of government scientific advisers, with scientists who are unaware of, or unwilling to, 'follow the rules' unable to maintain insider status over the long-term 62 .…”

Section: Box 10: Emerging Lessons From Covid-19mentioning

confidence: 99%

Science Advice in the UK

Hopkins¹,

Foxen²,

Oliver³

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This report examines the science advisory system in the UK, how it has changed and how it may develop further in the future. It looks at structure and functions within the UK Government (including the Government Chief Scientific Advisor, the Government Office for Science, government departments, scientific advisory committees - including SAGE - and the Science and Engineering Profession). It also describes science advice in the UK Parliament. The report looks at the role of public research funders, particularly UK Research and Innovation and its research councils, and it discusses how universities are responding to incentives to improve the supply of evidence and expertise. There are brief sections discussing the role of other actors (such as national academies, charities and industry) and discussion of some cross-cutting themes.

show abstract

The UK Government’s COVID-19 Policy: What Does “Guided by the Science” Mean in Practice?

Cited by 36 publications

References 49 publications

Following the science? Views from scientists on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study in five European countries

Following the science? Views from scientists on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study in five European countries

Science and policy in extremis: the UK’s initial response to COVID-19

Science Advice in the UK

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About