Lessons from the UK’s handling of Covid-19 for the future of scientific advice to government: a contribution to the UK Covid-19 Public Inquiry

IF 2.1 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Contemporary Social Science Pub Date : 2022-12-07 DOI:10.1080/21582041.2022.2150284
S. Michie, Philip Ball, James Wilsdon, R. West
{"title":"Lessons from the UK’s handling of Covid-19 for the future of scientific advice to government: a contribution to the UK Covid-19 Public Inquiry","authors":"S. Michie, Philip Ball, James Wilsdon, R. West","doi":"10.1080/21582041.2022.2150284","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Despite strong expertise and a sophisticated scientific advisory system, the UK’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic has been, and continues to be, weak in terms of preventing death and illness, and damage to the economy. This article argues that an important reason for this failure has been that the policies of the UK government have at critical times failed to take adequate account of scientific evidence, while at the same time attempts have been made to blame scientists for resulting policy failures. This paper analyses the role of scientific advice in addressing Covid-19 in the UK and draws three lessons for how such expertise can be better deployed in the future. It argues that: (1) Government scientific advisors and advisory bodies should be more independent of political influence and interference; (2) Government scientific advisors should be empowered to challenge misrepresentation and misuse by decision-makers of the scientific evidence, and undermining of public-health policies; and (3) Government scientific advice should be more transparent and advisors should engage more proactively with the public. Acting on these lessons will be important for ongoing handling of the current crisis, for the current UK Covid-19 Public Inquiry, and for the UK’s preparedness for future crises.","PeriodicalId":46484,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Social Science","volume":"17 1","pages":"418 - 433"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Social Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21582041.2022.2150284","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

ABSTRACT Despite strong expertise and a sophisticated scientific advisory system, the UK’s response to the Covid-19 pandemic has been, and continues to be, weak in terms of preventing death and illness, and damage to the economy. This article argues that an important reason for this failure has been that the policies of the UK government have at critical times failed to take adequate account of scientific evidence, while at the same time attempts have been made to blame scientists for resulting policy failures. This paper analyses the role of scientific advice in addressing Covid-19 in the UK and draws three lessons for how such expertise can be better deployed in the future. It argues that: (1) Government scientific advisors and advisory bodies should be more independent of political influence and interference; (2) Government scientific advisors should be empowered to challenge misrepresentation and misuse by decision-makers of the scientific evidence, and undermining of public-health policies; and (3) Government scientific advice should be more transparent and advisors should engage more proactively with the public. Acting on these lessons will be important for ongoing handling of the current crisis, for the current UK Covid-19 Public Inquiry, and for the UK’s preparedness for future crises.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
英国应对Covid-19的经验教训对政府未来的科学建议:对英国Covid-19公共调查的贡献
摘要尽管英国拥有强大的专业知识和完善的科学咨询系统,但在预防死亡和疾病以及对经济的破坏方面,英国对新冠肺炎疫情的应对一直并将继续薄弱。这篇文章认为,这一失败的一个重要原因是,英国政府的政策在关键时刻没有充分考虑科学证据,同时也试图将由此导致的政策失败归咎于科学家。本文分析了科学建议在英国应对新冠肺炎方面的作用,并为未来如何更好地部署这些专业知识吸取了三个教训。它认为:(1)政府科学顾问和咨询机构应更加独立于政治影响和干预;(2) 政府科学顾问应有权质疑决策者对科学证据的歪曲和滥用,以及对公共卫生政策的破坏;(3)政府的科学建议应该更加透明,顾问应该更积极地与公众接触。根据这些经验教训采取行动,对于当前危机的持续处理、当前英国新冠肺炎公共调查以及英国应对未来危机的准备工作都很重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Contemporary Social Science
Contemporary Social Science SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
8.30%
发文量
15
期刊最新文献
Reinventing public transport: rising to the transition challenge Winds from the East: ignored ancient Asian views on international trade and traders A ‘just transition’ for workers in the automotive sector? Survey evidence from the West Midlands Enabling a just transition Exploring opportunities for public sector organisations to connect wellbeing to resource loops in a regional circular economy
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1