Scientists advise, ministers decide? The role of scientific expertise in UK policymaking during the coronavirus pandemic

IF 2.4 4区 管理学 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Journal of Risk Research Pub Date : 2022-09-01 DOI:10.1080/13669877.2022.2116083
Nikolas Koch, B. Durodié
{"title":"Scientists advise, ministers decide? The role of scientific expertise in UK policymaking during the coronavirus pandemic","authors":"Nikolas Koch, B. Durodié","doi":"10.1080/13669877.2022.2116083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract COVID-19 has been a transformational crisis, uprooting everyday lives and causing some of the most significant health, social, and economic challenges in recent memory. Similarly, coronavirus has also forced significant political change, refocusing attention on politics and policymaking structures during a time of crisis. This shift is exemplified by scientific advisers’ role at the forefront of governmental decision-making. Scientific advice has provided vital knowledge and insight into the government’s pandemic responses. However, the coronavirus pandemic has also highlighted the complex nature of combining science with politics, as well as the difficulties involved in distinguishing between expert advice and political or moral choices. Such complexity warrants a reconsideration of science’s impact on policymaking. Namely, from a long-term view, the growth of governmental experts started well before the coronavirus pandemic. Partly, this proliferation is driven by a desire to improve policymaking, given that there is a clear need to effectively consult, consider, and act on the advice of experts in all fields of government. Nevertheless, societal changes like a declining trust in government also mean that expert advice can increasingly be used as a tool to legitimate or depoliticise debates. Considering the complexity of fighting a global pandemic, this belies that advice must be effectively scrutinised within broader contextual or operational considerations – a government cannot simply ‘follow the science’. Coronavirus highlights the need for a renewed focus on the interplay of expertise and policymaking, considering who, why, and on what basis governments are advised – as well as what lessons they draw from it.","PeriodicalId":16975,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Risk Research","volume":"25 1","pages":"1213 - 1222"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Risk Research","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2022.2116083","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Abstract COVID-19 has been a transformational crisis, uprooting everyday lives and causing some of the most significant health, social, and economic challenges in recent memory. Similarly, coronavirus has also forced significant political change, refocusing attention on politics and policymaking structures during a time of crisis. This shift is exemplified by scientific advisers’ role at the forefront of governmental decision-making. Scientific advice has provided vital knowledge and insight into the government’s pandemic responses. However, the coronavirus pandemic has also highlighted the complex nature of combining science with politics, as well as the difficulties involved in distinguishing between expert advice and political or moral choices. Such complexity warrants a reconsideration of science’s impact on policymaking. Namely, from a long-term view, the growth of governmental experts started well before the coronavirus pandemic. Partly, this proliferation is driven by a desire to improve policymaking, given that there is a clear need to effectively consult, consider, and act on the advice of experts in all fields of government. Nevertheless, societal changes like a declining trust in government also mean that expert advice can increasingly be used as a tool to legitimate or depoliticise debates. Considering the complexity of fighting a global pandemic, this belies that advice must be effectively scrutinised within broader contextual or operational considerations – a government cannot simply ‘follow the science’. Coronavirus highlights the need for a renewed focus on the interplay of expertise and policymaking, considering who, why, and on what basis governments are advised – as well as what lessons they draw from it.
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
科学家建议,部长决定?冠状病毒大流行期间科学专业知识在英国政策制定中的作用
摘要新冠肺炎是一场变革性危机,摧毁了日常生活,并造成了最近记忆中一些最重大的健康、社会和经济挑战。同样,冠状病毒也迫使政治发生重大变化,在危机时期将注意力重新集中在政治和决策结构上。这种转变体现在科学顾问在政府决策最前沿的作用上。科学建议为政府应对疫情提供了重要的知识和见解。然而,冠状病毒大流行也突显了科学与政治相结合的复杂性,以及区分专家建议和政治或道德选择的困难。这种复杂性需要重新考虑科学对决策的影响。也就是说,从长远来看,政府专家的增长早在冠状病毒大流行之前就开始了。这种扩散在一定程度上是出于改善政策制定的愿望,因为显然需要有效地咨询、考虑政府各领域专家的建议,并根据他们的建议采取行动。尽管如此,社会变革,如对政府的信任度下降,也意味着专家建议可以越来越多地被用作合法或非政治化辩论的工具。考虑到抗击全球疫情的复杂性,这掩盖了必须在更广泛的背景或操作考虑范围内有效审查建议——政府不能简单地“遵循科学”。冠状病毒突出表明,需要重新关注专业知识和政策制定的相互作用,考虑向谁、为什么以及在什么基础上向政府提供建议,以及他们从中吸取了什么教训。
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
Journal of Risk Research
Journal of Risk Research SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
12.20
自引率
5.90%
发文量
44
期刊介绍: The Journal of Risk Research is an international journal that publishes peer-reviewed theoretical and empirical research articles within the risk field from the areas of social, physical and health sciences and engineering, as well as articles related to decision making, regulation and policy issues in all disciplines. Articles will be published in English. The main aims of the Journal of Risk Research are to stimulate intellectual debate, to promote better risk management practices and to contribute to the development of risk management methodologies. Journal of Risk Research is the official journal of the Society for Risk Analysis Europe and the Society for Risk Analysis Japan.
期刊最新文献
How is counterfactual thinking integrated in organizational risk and resilience practices? Growing utopia – undoing risk through self-sufficiency and urban gardening? Improving workplace safety through mindful organizing: participative safety self-efficacy as a mediational link between collective mindfulness and employees’ safety citizenship Community flood resilience assessment of Saadi neighborhood, Shiraz, Iran Risk communication and Covid-19 through the lens of anonymous sources
×
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