Read on Twitter
New report out this morning with @tom_sasse and @AlexNicest
Science advice in a crisis.
Govt benefitted from a system of science advice that adjusted extraordinarily under the circumstances.
But it has too often failed to use that advice well. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/science-advice-crisis
Science advice in a crisis.
Govt benefitted from a system of science advice that adjusted extraordinarily under the circumstances.
But it has too often failed to use that advice well. https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/publications/science-advice-crisis
The govt’s ‘follow the science’ mantra was misconception of role science could play.
In early stages of crisis chaotic decision making hampered SAGE’s ability to advise on policy. Interviewees talked about ‘black box’ where they didn’t know what happened with advice.
In early stages of crisis chaotic decision making hampered SAGE’s ability to advise on policy. Interviewees talked about ‘black box’ where they didn’t know what happened with advice.
SAGE has dealt with punishing workload. Met more than 70 times and has produced 360 working papers (both figures now have gone up). Many of its external members working pro bono alongside other duties throughout.
It was designed as ad hoc emergency body (the ‘e’ in SAGE). Its ongoing role probably testament to its prominence and public awareness. It is not the only form of advice but it is most public source.
At various stages govt decision making failed to bring together science with other forms of advice to overall strategy. Govt ‘recovery strategy’ out of lockdown failed to bring together economic and health aims. Eat Out to Help Out described as ‘epidemiologically illiterate’
Ministers needing better skills to challenge and understand science.
SAGE could have benefitted from external public health experts rather than seeing itself as ‘pure science’ but not right place for economists to sit. But govt did need better process for bringing both together
SAGE could have benefitted from external public health experts rather than seeing itself as ‘pure science’ but not right place for economists to sit. But govt did need better process for bringing both together
After initial secrecy, SAGE transparency has been good. But by failing to set out other reasons behind policy (publishing economic analysis) govt have contributed to science being presented as adversarial to other factors.
But ministers (led by PM) communication of science has too often failed to set out risk and uncertainty. Key measures leaked, overly optimistic messages necessarily followed by bad news. Has created confusing picture for public on risk.
Plus.... Barnard Castle....
Plus.... Barnard Castle....
Vallance and Whitty faced v difficult task. Huge challenge for any scientific advisors to stay close enough to govt while maintaining the perception of independence of their advice. Credit to their professionalism.
But on reflection, probably needed separate press conferences.
But on reflection, probably needed separate press conferences.
Overall, no amount of quality scientific advice can make up for a lack of consistent overall strategy.
It is telling that many of our recommendations echo recs from previous crisis inquiries.
Govt has learnt many lessons but must get better grip in hard months ahead.
It is telling that many of our recommendations echo recs from previous crisis inquiries.
Govt has learnt many lessons but must get better grip in hard months ahead.
More from one of my excellent co-authors @tom_sasse here https://twitter.com/tom_sasse/status/1340922555897683970
