COVID-19 has exposed the uncertainty of scientific debate to a wider audience, but Graham Martin and Esmée Hanna argue this is no bad thing—because science is too important to leave to scientists alone

Hanna, Esmée

Martin, Graham

English

LSE Research Online

Beyond	‘following	the	science’:	increased	interest	inscientific	debate	is	a	chance	to	create	better	dialoguebetween	scientists	and	societyCOVID-19	has	exposed	the	uncertainty	of	scientific	debate	to	a	wider	audience,	but	Graham	Martin	and	EsméeHanna	argue	this	is	no	bad	thing—because	science	is	too	important	to	leave	to	scientists	alone.Since	the	start	of	the	COVID-19	pandemic,	science	has	been	cast	in	a	leading	role	in	navigating	a	passage	throughthe	crisis.	Government	ministers	claim	to	have	been	‘following	the	science’	in	their	decisions.	Scientific	modelsprovide	us	with	projections	about	future	infections	that	guide	preventive	action.	Prescriptions	for	individual-levelbehaviour	derive	from	insights	from	a	multitude	of	disciplines	about	how	the	virus	seems	to	spread.	As	infectionsincrease	once	more	and	new	restrictions	are	put	in	place	around	the	UK,	scientific	innovation—in	the	form	of	avaccine—is	seen	by	some	as	the	only	feasible	way	of	ending	the	upheavals	introduced	during	the	pandemic.In	practice,	of	course,	‘following	the	science’	isn’t	quite	so	simple.	For	one	thing,	scientific	development	doesn’talways	live	up	to	expectations—there’s	plenty	of	uncertainty,	for	example,	about	how	effective	any	vaccine	willactually	prove	to	be.	For	another,	the	idea	of	‘the	science’	is	itself	rather	misleading.	Science	is	composed	of	manydisciplines.	A	solution	developed	and	tested	according	to	the	principles	and	methods	of	one	discipline	may	not	lookso	effective	when	judged	by	the	standards	of	another.	What	works	in	a	laboratory	may	not	work	in	the	field;	whatworks	for	one	species,	setting	or	human	population	doesn’t	necessarily	transfer	easily	to	another.Take	the	example	of	face	masks.	In	the	early	stages	of	the	pandemic,	received	scientific	wisdom	was	that	therewas	little	evidence	that	using	them	in	non-clinical	settings	would	do	much	to	reduce	transmission	of	the	virus.	Thatchanged	in	June,	when	the	World	Health	Organization	issued	new	guidance	that	advised	routine	use	of	face	masksin	community	settings,	based	in	part	on	a	new	review	of	the	evidence	it	had	commissioned.	This	review	foundassociations	between	mask-wearing	and	reduced	transmission	of	various	coronaviruses,	albeit	based	on	evidencefrom	observational	studies.	Reviews	that	include	randomised	studies,	which	are	usually	seen	as	better	at	identifyingcause	and	effect,	have	been	more	cautious	about	the	evidence	base	for	face	masks.	Others	have	suggested	thatmass	uptake	of	masks	in	community	settings	could	have	unanticipated	negative	consequences	that	have	not	yetbeen	properly	studied.Certainly,	the	downsides	for	some	groups	have	become	apparent	as	mask	adoption	has	been	mandated.	In	thecourse	of	our	ongoing	study	into	the	experiences	of	face	masks	and	other	coverings,	we	have	heard	from	somepeople	how	mandatory	mask	use	has	limited	their	ability	to	conduct	their	daily	activities.	For	others	it	has	causedincreased	anxiety	and	worries,	particularly	those	who	are	exempt	from	wearing	one	for	health	or	other	reasons.Exemption	is	forcing	people	to	repeatedly	disclose	details	of	their	medical	history	(including	physical	and	mentalhealth	issues)	or	other	personal	information	(such	as	past	trauma,	or	neurodiversity)	with	others	in	public	settings,or	wear	badges	or	lanyards.	People	have	persevered	with	wearing	a	face	covering	despite	the	communication,mobility	or	dermatological	issues	it	poses,	because	they	believe	it	is	important	to	adhere	to	scientific	advice.As	well	as	uncertainties	about	the	effectiveness	of	masks,	then,	there	are	debates	about	the	downsides	andunintended	consequences.	Like	most	public	health	interventions,	masks	are	no	panacea:	they	will	have	benefitsand	drawbacks,	and	both	will	be	unevenly	distributed.	Debates	of	this	kind—about	efficacy	and	effectiveness,	abouthow	to	synthesise	findings	from	different	fields,	about	how	to	weigh	up	costs	and	benefits	for	different	groups,	andabout	what	standard	of	evidence	is	‘good	enough’—are	very	familiar	to	people	working	in	fields	such	asepidemiology,	health	services	research,	and	health	economics.	The	COVID-19	crisis,	however,	has	rendered	thesedebates	more	visible.	The	urgency	of	improving	our	knowledge	of	the	virus	and	the	public	interest	in	the	issues	atstake	have	exposed	scientific	argument	to	the	wider	world,	and	what	we’ve	seen	hasn’t	always	been	pretty.	On	keyquestions	about	pandemic	management,	scientists	appear	as	divided	as	politicians—and	sometimes	even	lesspolite	in	their	disagreements.British Politics and Policy at LSE: Beyond ‘following the science’: increased interest in scientific debate is a chance to create better dialogue betweenscientists and societyPage 1 of 2		Date originally posted: 2020-10-23Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/science-society-covid19/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/Most	recently,	this	has	culminated	in	two	open	letters	presenting	rather	different	characterisations	of	the	currentstate	of	the	pandemic	in	the	UK,	and	divergent	prescriptions	for	what	to	do	about	it.	Conspiracy	theorists	cast	darkaspersions	about	the	hidden	interests	that	might	explain	these	differences,	and	impugn	the	quality	or	even	thehonesty	of	each	group’s	science.	The	real	reason	for	the	divergence,	however,	is	perhaps	rather	simpler,	and	lessshadowy.	It’s	that	we’re	at	the	limits	of	what	‘the	science’	can	tell	us,	at	least	for	the	time	being.	Bringing	togetherdifferent	insights	from	diverse	disciplines,	or	modelling	a	range	of	scenarios	for	future	infection,	morbidity	andmortality,	can	help	to	reduce	our	uncertainty,	and	make	the	pandemic	tractable.	But	turning	that	improvedknowledge	into	action	requires	broader	insights	from	other	academic	disciplines,	such	as	the	social	sciences—andmost	importantly	of	all,	from	wider	society.The	increasingly	public	spats	we	see	between	scientists,	then,	less	reflect	differences	in	scientific	knowledge	thandifferences	in	judgments	about	what	to	prioritise	given	the	limits	of	that	knowledge.	While	doctors,	epidemiologistsand	others	in	biomedical	research	have	valid	insights	on	these	issues,	we	cannot	rely	on	scientists	alone	to	makecalls	on	questions	that	are	affecting	us	all,	profoundly,	every	day.	In	a	democracy,	these	are	problems	for	everyoneto	grapple	with,	with	a	view	to	reaching	consensus	on	action—not	least	because	there	are	no	easy	answers.This	isn’t	to	suggest	that	scientists	should	stay	in	their	lane,	or	stick	to	the	ivory	towers.	The	scenes	may	have	beenunedifying	at	times,	but	increased	interest	in	scientific	debate	is	ultimately	a	good	thing.	It	is	a	chance	to	createbetter	dialogue	between	scientists	and	the	society	they	serve,	and	to	dispel	any	notion	that	science	is	a	saviour	thatwill	serve	us	up	solutions—or,	conversely,	that	science	is	irredeemably	corrupt,	beholden	to	whichever	corporateinterest	is	signing	the	cheques.	But	this	requires	honesty	and	humility	from	scientists	in	acknowledging	that	theydon’t	have	all	the	answers,	that	the	knowledge	they	provide	is	imperfect,	and	that	they	have	no	privileged	positionwhen	it	comes	to	deciding	what	to	do	with	it.Decades	of	social	scientific	research	on	public	understanding	of	science	has	dispelled	the	myth	that	distrust	andantagonism	towards	scientists	is	simply	down	to	ignorance	of	science.	Scientists	and	other	academics	mustrecognise	that	the	wider	public	is	smart	and	interested.	The	lay	public	should	be	engaged	honestly	on	theuncertainty	that’s	inherent	in	the	scientific	enterprise,	and	be	trusted,	collectively,	to	make	sense	of	it.	Scientists	relyon	public	confidence—not	just	for	funding,	but	for	participation	in	the	kinds	of	studies	that	could	provide	us	witha	better	understanding	of	what	face	masks	and	other	things	can	do	for	public	health—in	this	pandemic	and	the	next.Science,	and	what	we	do	with	it,	is	too	important	to	leave	to	scientists.	And	in	the	long	run,	scientists	will	be	theones	who	suffer	if	they	overstep	their	knowledge	or	understate	their	uncertainty.____________________Note:	the	above	was	first	published	on	the	LSE	COVID-19	blog.	Featured	image	credit:	Boris	Johnson	leaves	No10.	Photo:	Number	10	via	a	CC-BY-NC-ND	2.0	licenceAbout	the	AuthorsGraham	Martin	is	Director	of	Research	at	The	Healthcare	Improvement	Studies	Institute,	University	of	Cambridge.Esmée	Hanna	is	Reader	(Associate	Professor)	in	the	Faculty	of	Health	and	Life	Sciences,	De	Montfort	UniversityLeicester.			British Politics and Policy at LSE: Beyond ‘following the science’: increased interest in scientific debate is a chance to create better dialogue betweenscientists and societyPage 2 of 2		Date originally posted: 2020-10-23Permalink: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/science-society-covid19/Blog homepage: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/

Beyond ‘following the science’: increased interest in scientific debate is a chance to create better dialogue between scientists and society

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/107341/1/politicsandpolicy_science_society.pdf

Beyond ‘following the science’: increased interest in scientific debate is a chance to create better dialogue between scientists and society

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online