The status of science after the pandemic
In the years before the Covid pandemic, scientists were increasingly encouraged to engage with the lay public as well as with each other. Meanwhile, politicians were increasingly encouraged to take account of science, with a premium placed upon ‘evidence-based policy’. The meaning and consequences of these ideas have been tested severely by the pandemic, which has seen scientists, particularly in biomedical fields, thrust into the public and political spotlight.
During the pandemic, some senior scientists, such as those who sit on the UK’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), have been called upon to advise government directly. Others have seen their research cited as justification for pandemic-related policies, eliciting intense scrutiny and criticism from outside scientific circles.
Furthermore, the urgency of the pandemic has seen an acceleration of the customarily slow timescales of scientific publishing and processes. This has brought benefits, such as the rapid development of vaccines, but has also intensified debate and disagreement. Where particular claims or reasoning have been disputed, it has not always been clear whether criticism is being levelled at the relevant scientific research, or at the way research has been interpreted and applied. The widespread use of preprints, which have not been subject to the full back-and-forth refinement of peer review and editorial critique, has been useful in getting new findings into the public domain, but the provisional nature of these papers may not always be appreciated.
The old convention that ‘experts propose, politicians dispose’ – meaning that politicians take responsibility for decisions made in light of expert advice – has not always been adhered to during the pandemic, as some scientists and academics have taken flak that should arguably have been directed elsewhere. At the same time, however, some outspoken scientists have seemed willing and able to place themselves in the line of political fire, appealing and campaigning in public for certain policies to be pursued.
The currency of scientific credentials has been much debated. Some credentialed experts have offered views, only to be accused of going beyond their specific area of expertise. Others have been characterised by their critics as outliers, who lack credibility because they diverge so drastically from a prevailing scientific consensus.
As we emerge from the impacts of Covid, what should we conclude about scientific authority and accountability? How should science and politics relate to one another? In what circumstances, and in what capacity, should scientists feel free to speak their mind publicly? Conversely, when is it reasonable for lay people to direct criticism at scientists? How should scientists use, and relate to, traditional media and social media? And how have the everyday challenges of a jobbing scientist – obtaining funding, pressure to publish, demonstrating impact, negotiating tensions with one’s seniors and colleagues – affected, and been affected by, the politics of the pandemic?
