在紧急情况下公开专家建议:独立的SAGE和英国Covid大流行期间的科学争论。

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE Social Studies of Science Pub Date : 2025-01-10 DOI:10.1177/03063127241309071
Noortje Marres, Matías Valderrama Barragán
{"title":"在紧急情况下公开专家建议:独立的SAGE和英国Covid大流行期间的科学争论。","authors":"Noortje Marres, Matías Valderrama Barragán","doi":"10.1177/03063127241309071","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article presents a situational analysis of the expert advice offered by Independent SAGE, a group of scientists that formed in May 2020 in the UK to provide advice on the Covid response. Based on interviews with the group's members and partners, we argue that through its interventions Indie SAGE demonstrated an important alternative approach to linking science and politics in a time of emergency. They showed that the only way to ensure that policy and decision-making on Covid-19 was grounded in knowledge was by making expert advice public. Indie SAGE's decision to 'go public' was a response to the political situation in the UK, one in which scientific advice, in particular public health expertise, was being ignored, sidelined and contested as such. We identify four rationales for making expert advice public: openness, calling out, translation, and responsive engagement. We describe associated modes of intervention that Indie SAGE adopted in relation to different critical situations of Covid-19. Distinctive about their advice, we argue, is its prioritization of <i>situational adequacy</i>. Much of it was explicitly oriented towards addressing practical and existential challenges experienced by particular social groups, professions and everyday publics. We argue that this way of making science public in an 'ontological' register acquires critical importance in a political situation like the UK Covid response, which was marked not just by disagreements about science but growing contestation of science as such. In this respect, our study holds a wider lesson for the understanding of the role of evidence in public politics. To advocate for evidence-based governance, as Indie SAGE did, is not necessarily to endorse a post-political vision of government. When science is contested in a time of emergency, making evidence public becomes a key means for responding to the demands of situations. It is not only pragmatic but a critical accomplishment.</p>","PeriodicalId":51152,"journal":{"name":"Social Studies of Science","volume":" ","pages":"3063127241309071"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Making expert advice public in a time of emergency: Independent SAGE and the contestation of science during the Covid pandemic in the UK.\",\"authors\":\"Noortje Marres, Matías Valderrama Barragán\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/03063127241309071\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This article presents a situational analysis of the expert advice offered by Independent SAGE, a group of scientists that formed in May 2020 in the UK to provide advice on the Covid response. Based on interviews with the group's members and partners, we argue that through its interventions Indie SAGE demonstrated an important alternative approach to linking science and politics in a time of emergency. They showed that the only way to ensure that policy and decision-making on Covid-19 was grounded in knowledge was by making expert advice public. Indie SAGE's decision to 'go public' was a response to the political situation in the UK, one in which scientific advice, in particular public health expertise, was being ignored, sidelined and contested as such. We identify four rationales for making expert advice public: openness, calling out, translation, and responsive engagement. We describe associated modes of intervention that Indie SAGE adopted in relation to different critical situations of Covid-19. Distinctive about their advice, we argue, is its prioritization of <i>situational adequacy</i>. Much of it was explicitly oriented towards addressing practical and existential challenges experienced by particular social groups, professions and everyday publics. We argue that this way of making science public in an 'ontological' register acquires critical importance in a political situation like the UK Covid response, which was marked not just by disagreements about science but growing contestation of science as such. In this respect, our study holds a wider lesson for the understanding of the role of evidence in public politics. To advocate for evidence-based governance, as Indie SAGE did, is not necessarily to endorse a post-political vision of government. When science is contested in a time of emergency, making evidence public becomes a key means for responding to the demands of situations. It is not only pragmatic but a critical accomplishment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51152,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Social Studies of Science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"3063127241309071\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Social Studies of Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127241309071\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Studies of Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/03063127241309071","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文对独立SAGE提供的专家建议进行了情景分析,该专家组于2020年5月在英国成立,旨在为应对Covid提供建议。根据对该小组成员和合作伙伴的采访,我们认为,通过其干预措施,Indie SAGE展示了在紧急情况下将科学与政治联系起来的重要替代方法。他们表明,确保Covid-19政策和决策建立在知识基础上的唯一途径是公开专家建议。Indie SAGE“上市”的决定是对英国政治局势的回应,在这种政治局势中,科学建议,特别是公共卫生专业知识,被忽视、边缘化和争议。我们确定了公开专家建议的四个基本原则:开放、呼吁、翻译和响应性参与。我们描述了独立SAGE针对Covid-19的不同危急情况采取的相关干预模式。我们认为,他们的建议的独特之处在于其对情境充分性的优先考虑。其中很大一部分明确面向解决特定社会群体、职业和日常公众所面临的实际和存在的挑战。我们认为,这种以“本体论”的方式公开科学的方式,在像英国应对新冠肺炎这样的政治局势中具有至关重要的意义,英国应对新冠肺炎的特点不仅是对科学的分歧,而且是对科学本身日益激烈的争论。在这方面,我们的研究为理解证据在公共政治中的作用提供了更广泛的经验。正如Indie SAGE所做的那样,提倡基于证据的治理并不一定支持后政治的政府愿景。当科学在紧急情况下受到质疑时,公开证据成为应对形势要求的关键手段。这不仅是务实的,而且是一项重要的成就。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Making expert advice public in a time of emergency: Independent SAGE and the contestation of science during the Covid pandemic in the UK.

This article presents a situational analysis of the expert advice offered by Independent SAGE, a group of scientists that formed in May 2020 in the UK to provide advice on the Covid response. Based on interviews with the group's members and partners, we argue that through its interventions Indie SAGE demonstrated an important alternative approach to linking science and politics in a time of emergency. They showed that the only way to ensure that policy and decision-making on Covid-19 was grounded in knowledge was by making expert advice public. Indie SAGE's decision to 'go public' was a response to the political situation in the UK, one in which scientific advice, in particular public health expertise, was being ignored, sidelined and contested as such. We identify four rationales for making expert advice public: openness, calling out, translation, and responsive engagement. We describe associated modes of intervention that Indie SAGE adopted in relation to different critical situations of Covid-19. Distinctive about their advice, we argue, is its prioritization of situational adequacy. Much of it was explicitly oriented towards addressing practical and existential challenges experienced by particular social groups, professions and everyday publics. We argue that this way of making science public in an 'ontological' register acquires critical importance in a political situation like the UK Covid response, which was marked not just by disagreements about science but growing contestation of science as such. In this respect, our study holds a wider lesson for the understanding of the role of evidence in public politics. To advocate for evidence-based governance, as Indie SAGE did, is not necessarily to endorse a post-political vision of government. When science is contested in a time of emergency, making evidence public becomes a key means for responding to the demands of situations. It is not only pragmatic but a critical accomplishment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Social Studies of Science
Social Studies of Science 管理科学-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
45
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Social Studies of Science is an international peer reviewed journal that encourages submissions of original research on science, technology and medicine. The journal is multidisciplinary, publishing work from a range of fields including: political science, sociology, economics, history, philosophy, psychology social anthropology, legal and educational disciplines. This journal is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
期刊最新文献
Virtual diversity and the value-ladenness of science Silence of the labs. The commercial roots of the genomic commons From the bench to public policy: Enhancing public trust in science. Making expert advice public in a time of emergency: Independent SAGE and the contestation of science during the Covid pandemic in the UK.
×
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