Are science and political accountability compatible?
It's been a while since we've had such regular exposal to experts and particularly scientists. Scientific advisors are always working with the government but it is generally unusual for them to be a prominent part of government briefings almost every day. The emergence of the global pandemic, COVID-19, has changed this. While the current politicians in power haven't always been visibly keen on the opinions of experts, now the UK government, and many others around the world, are falling over themselves to say that they are being entirely guided by the science and that all their decisions are based on the highest quality scientific advice.
But what happens when things go wrong? Who is responsible if politicians are merely 'following the science'? Are politicians still even in charge?
The answers to these questions are fairly clear cut but some of the language we use in this situation obscures this. It certainly might not appear obvious given how often this debate is being turned around in the public conversation. As the UK has rapidly risen up the rankings in terms of case numbers and total deaths from COVID-19, people have increasingly been asking why the UK was not better prepared. In theory we had a head start on some other countries in Europe - we had a good two weeks where we could see what was happening in Italy. If it had spread all the way from China to Italy, we could be pretty certain it would get to the UK too.
Without detailing everything that has been reported so far on the government response, it seems likely that not everything was managed as well as it could have been. Understandably then, faced with the likelihood of avoidable hardship and avoidable deaths, a simple question is being asked: who was responsible?
Ordinarily, the answer to this is obvious. Politicians make the decisions and they are accountable. But with the renewed rise of experts and the emphasis on declaring that all decisions are being driven by scientific advice, the normally clear waters of accountability have become cloudy. Are politicians still responsible if they are simply given poor scientific advice? And what if the advice wasn't that poor? After all, it's a new disease, it's understandable that the scientists wouldn't have known everything and couldn't have anticipated all the necessary decisions. These kinds of questions do confuse things and do open up the question of who is really accountable in such a situation. However, we can shine a light on the darkness by considering two key things.
First, focus on the specific mistakes, not general principles. Yes it's true that there is a lot we still don't know about the virus (including very important things for determining a strategy, like whether you can get reinfected after having it once before) but that doesn't mean there aren't things we could have known and could have done. Cutting movement across the borders and introducing mandatory quarantine immediately, to be replaced by testing, would have been a logical step. Assessments of stocks of personal protective equipment could also have highlighted a need for quick action. Even once decisions were taken, such as moving to ramp up ventilator production, there are questions about the process that are unrelated to scientific advice - did the government correctly manage engaging with businesses and was it right to stay out of the EU joint procurement scheme? Scientific advice only covers a relatively small part of the business of government in responding to a pandemic - on specific issues we can still easily see how politicians are the ones who make the decisions and who decide policy as they would in any other scenario.
Second, scientists never actually make the decisions and science doesn't provide the single correct answer. Politicians rarely make decisions in a total vacuum - they will often draw on the advice of various experts, including, where appropriate, from senior scientists. This does not mean that scientists ever make decisions. Politicians are still the ones who call the shots. Indeed, if this weren't true then we should be concerned about much more than just who is responsible but whether our governing system is democratic at all. And we should also not imagine that when this advice is given, that our politicians are presented with a single correct answer and that all they need to do is follow it. More likely they will hear a range of different options and will need to make a decision as to which is the best strategy. When it comes to giving policy advice, scientific assessments aren't well, an exact science. Now it might seem unfair that politicians are held accountable for the advice other people give but this is why it is so important that those at the top are properly equipped to distinguish between different kinds of advice coming from different sources - it is quite simply the nature of the job. To treat the issue otherwise would conclude in removing accountability entirely.
The way the debate is framed can make it appear confusing but at the end of the day the answer is simple. Scientists support politicians in their role, some times more so than others, but it's always the politicians who make the decisions in the end, as it must be for accountability and democracy to function.
Image via Flickr
But what happens when things go wrong? Who is responsible if politicians are merely 'following the science'? Are politicians still even in charge?
The answers to these questions are fairly clear cut but some of the language we use in this situation obscures this. It certainly might not appear obvious given how often this debate is being turned around in the public conversation. As the UK has rapidly risen up the rankings in terms of case numbers and total deaths from COVID-19, people have increasingly been asking why the UK was not better prepared. In theory we had a head start on some other countries in Europe - we had a good two weeks where we could see what was happening in Italy. If it had spread all the way from China to Italy, we could be pretty certain it would get to the UK too.
Without detailing everything that has been reported so far on the government response, it seems likely that not everything was managed as well as it could have been. Understandably then, faced with the likelihood of avoidable hardship and avoidable deaths, a simple question is being asked: who was responsible?
Ordinarily, the answer to this is obvious. Politicians make the decisions and they are accountable. But with the renewed rise of experts and the emphasis on declaring that all decisions are being driven by scientific advice, the normally clear waters of accountability have become cloudy. Are politicians still responsible if they are simply given poor scientific advice? And what if the advice wasn't that poor? After all, it's a new disease, it's understandable that the scientists wouldn't have known everything and couldn't have anticipated all the necessary decisions. These kinds of questions do confuse things and do open up the question of who is really accountable in such a situation. However, we can shine a light on the darkness by considering two key things.
First, focus on the specific mistakes, not general principles. Yes it's true that there is a lot we still don't know about the virus (including very important things for determining a strategy, like whether you can get reinfected after having it once before) but that doesn't mean there aren't things we could have known and could have done. Cutting movement across the borders and introducing mandatory quarantine immediately, to be replaced by testing, would have been a logical step. Assessments of stocks of personal protective equipment could also have highlighted a need for quick action. Even once decisions were taken, such as moving to ramp up ventilator production, there are questions about the process that are unrelated to scientific advice - did the government correctly manage engaging with businesses and was it right to stay out of the EU joint procurement scheme? Scientific advice only covers a relatively small part of the business of government in responding to a pandemic - on specific issues we can still easily see how politicians are the ones who make the decisions and who decide policy as they would in any other scenario.
Second, scientists never actually make the decisions and science doesn't provide the single correct answer. Politicians rarely make decisions in a total vacuum - they will often draw on the advice of various experts, including, where appropriate, from senior scientists. This does not mean that scientists ever make decisions. Politicians are still the ones who call the shots. Indeed, if this weren't true then we should be concerned about much more than just who is responsible but whether our governing system is democratic at all. And we should also not imagine that when this advice is given, that our politicians are presented with a single correct answer and that all they need to do is follow it. More likely they will hear a range of different options and will need to make a decision as to which is the best strategy. When it comes to giving policy advice, scientific assessments aren't well, an exact science. Now it might seem unfair that politicians are held accountable for the advice other people give but this is why it is so important that those at the top are properly equipped to distinguish between different kinds of advice coming from different sources - it is quite simply the nature of the job. To treat the issue otherwise would conclude in removing accountability entirely.
The way the debate is framed can make it appear confusing but at the end of the day the answer is simple. Scientists support politicians in their role, some times more so than others, but it's always the politicians who make the decisions in the end, as it must be for accountability and democracy to function.
Image via Flickr
Comments
Post a Comment