But I’m not sure it was ever fully understood by the public and policymakers or, sadly, by some scientists. That scientists advise and politicians decide was espoused by Chris Whitty and Patrick Vallance regularly. If we are asking governments to loosen the reins and let scientists be scientists, there should also be an onus on scientists advising government not to stray too far into politics or demand particular policies. As an endeavour that relies on the objective and impartial testing of the evidence, science has to be separate from political bias to serve its purpose. Science is messy, uncertain, incomplete and contested – rarely amenable to the simple messaging favoured by government comms. These are perfectly reasonable communications objectives for politicians, but on both counts they don’t sit well with science. But it’s also about messaging that will deliver the popular vote come the next election. I accept this is often driven by a genuine desire to ensure the public are getting a single clear public health message. He readily admitted that when he was Tony Blair’s chief strategy adviser, any independent scientists who strayed into their purview were drawn into their media management. I recently discussed this with Mathew Taylor on his podcast. The other element is a deep-seated desire among politicians and their media advisers to control the narrative. Science has to be separate from political bias to serve its purpose When Bingham challenged the decision, Cain explained that it was not OK that she was getting more media coverage than some ministers, demonstrating how the public interest in hearing from the best scientists comes second to government media strategy. In her book about the pandemic, Kate Bingham, the independent life sciences expert brought in to run the vaccine taskforce, described a confrontation with Lee Cain, Boris Johnson’s director of communications, who stopped her doing media interviews on a paper she had published in the the Lancet, a scientific journal. One of the problems is that politicians and their media advisers tend to view scientific experts brought in to advise government the same as politicians. But the rolling of science into politics through government communications is where things get problematic. We need scientific advice to government at times of crisis and I think Sage did that very well. But they do reinforce my belief that science and politics are best when bathed in the clear blue waters of separation. Now I’m not averse to a bit of ripe language myself and I am mindful that these messages were intended to be private. When asked to deal with Farrar, one of Hancock’s special advisers replied: “What is your ask? Get rid or neutralise?” Nor was it just Hancock who seemed to view these pesky scientists as an inconvenience. They were “ totally unreliable” and “wacky” (Dame Kate Bingham) a “ totally offside… loudmouth” (Sir Jeremy Farrar) and a “ prize idiot” (Prof Jon Deeks) while Prof Sharon Peacock, the amazing scientist who set up Covid-19 Genomics UK Consortium (COG-UK), was deemed “ a total outrage”, because she didn’t warn him months earlier that the Alpha variant was coming (revealing Hancock’s misunderstanding of the work of these genome sequencers). M att Hancock’s views about the independent experts advising government, detailed in the Lockdown Files, are revealing.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |