How did UK policymaking in the COVID-19 response use science? Evidence from scientific advisers

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Evidence & Policy Pub Date : 2022-01-01 DOI:10.1332/174426421x16388976414615
P. Atkinson, Ha Sheard, A. Martindale, T. Solomon, Aleksandra J. Borek, C. Pilbeam
{"title":"How did UK policymaking in the COVID-19 response use science? Evidence from scientific advisers","authors":"P. Atkinson, Ha Sheard, A. Martindale, T. Solomon, Aleksandra J. Borek, C. Pilbeam","doi":"10.1332/174426421x16388976414615","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Responses to COVID-19 have invested heavily in science. How this science was used is therefore important. Our work extends existing knowledge on the use of science in the pandemic by capturing scientific advisers’ experiences in real time.Aims and objectives: Our aim was to present generalisable messages on key qualifications or difficulties involved in speaking of ‘following the science’.Methods: Ninety-three interviews with UK scientific advisors and government officials captured their activities and perceptions during the pandemic in real time. We also examined Parliamentary Select Committee transcripts and government documents. This material was analysed for thematic content.Findings and discussion: (1) Many scientists sought guidance from policymakers about their goals, yet the COVID-19 response demonstrated the absence of a clear steer, and a tendency to change course quickly; (2) many scientists did not want to offer policy advice, but rather to provide evidence; and (3) a range of knowledge informed the UK’s pandemic response: we examine which kinds were privileged, and demonstrate the absence of clarity on how government synthesised the different forms of evidence being used.Conclusions: Understanding the reasons for a lack of clarity about policy goals would help us better understand the use of science in policy. Realisation that policy goals sometimes alter rapidly would help us better understand the logistics of scientific advice. Many scientists want their evidence to inform policy rather than determine the options selected. Since the process by which evidence leads to decisions is obscure, policy cannot be said to be evidence-based.Key messagesScientific advisors need to know policy goals, but these can be obscure and changeable.Many scientists want their evidence to inform policy rather than determine the policy selected.Evidence feeds into decisions in obscure ways, so policy cannot be said to be evidence-based.‘Evidence-informed’ policy is a more feasible aim than ‘evidence-based’ policy.","PeriodicalId":51652,"journal":{"name":"Evidence & Policy","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence & Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421x16388976414615","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Background: Responses to COVID-19 have invested heavily in science. How this science was used is therefore important. Our work extends existing knowledge on the use of science in the pandemic by capturing scientific advisers’ experiences in real time.Aims and objectives: Our aim was to present generalisable messages on key qualifications or difficulties involved in speaking of ‘following the science’.Methods: Ninety-three interviews with UK scientific advisors and government officials captured their activities and perceptions during the pandemic in real time. We also examined Parliamentary Select Committee transcripts and government documents. This material was analysed for thematic content.Findings and discussion: (1) Many scientists sought guidance from policymakers about their goals, yet the COVID-19 response demonstrated the absence of a clear steer, and a tendency to change course quickly; (2) many scientists did not want to offer policy advice, but rather to provide evidence; and (3) a range of knowledge informed the UK’s pandemic response: we examine which kinds were privileged, and demonstrate the absence of clarity on how government synthesised the different forms of evidence being used.Conclusions: Understanding the reasons for a lack of clarity about policy goals would help us better understand the use of science in policy. Realisation that policy goals sometimes alter rapidly would help us better understand the logistics of scientific advice. Many scientists want their evidence to inform policy rather than determine the options selected. Since the process by which evidence leads to decisions is obscure, policy cannot be said to be evidence-based.Key messagesScientific advisors need to know policy goals, but these can be obscure and changeable.Many scientists want their evidence to inform policy rather than determine the policy selected.Evidence feeds into decisions in obscure ways, so policy cannot be said to be evidence-based.‘Evidence-informed’ policy is a more feasible aim than ‘evidence-based’ policy.
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
英国在应对COVID-19的决策中如何利用科学?来自科学顾问的证据
背景:应对COVID-19的措施在科学方面投入了大量资金。因此,如何运用这门科学非常重要。我们的工作通过实时获取科学顾问的经验,扩展了关于在大流行病中使用科学的现有知识。目的和目标:我们的目的是提出关于“遵循科学”所涉及的关键条件或困难的概括性信息。方法:对英国科学顾问和政府官员进行93次访谈,实时捕捉他们在大流行期间的活动和看法。我们还审查了议会特别委员会的记录和政府文件。对这些材料进行了专题分析。调查结果和讨论:(1)许多科学家寻求政策制定者对其目标的指导,但COVID-19应对措施表明缺乏明确的方向,并且倾向于迅速改变方向;(2)许多科学家不希望提供政策建议,而是希望提供证据;(3)一系列知识为英国的大流行应对提供了信息:我们研究了哪些类型的知识得到了特权,并证明政府如何综合使用不同形式的证据缺乏明确性。结论:了解政策目标缺乏明确性的原因将有助于我们更好地理解科学在政策中的应用。认识到政策目标有时会迅速改变,将有助于我们更好地理解科学建议的逻辑。许多科学家希望他们的证据为政策提供信息,而不是决定所选择的选项。由于证据导致决策的过程是模糊的,因此不能说政策是基于证据的。关键信息:科学顾问需要知道政策目标,但是这些目标可能是模糊和多变的。许多科学家希望他们的证据为政策提供信息,而不是决定所选择的政策。证据以模糊的方式影响决策,因此不能说政策是基于证据的。“循证”政策是比“循证”政策更可行的目标。
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
Evidence & Policy
Evidence & Policy SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
14.30%
发文量
53
期刊最新文献
Breaking the Overton Window: on the need for adversarial co-production Examining research systems and models for local government: a systematic review Experiences and perceptions of evidence use among senior health service decision makers in Ireland: a qualitative study The critical factors in producing high quality and policy-relevant research: insights from international behavioural science units Understanding brokers, intermediaries, and boundary spanners: a multi-sectoral review of strategies, skills, and outcomes
×
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