Government needs to treat us like grown-ups
Politicians should be clear that there is no settled scientific answer to the problem of Covid-19
Science and politics. Not a marriage made in heaven. They both now need a marriage counsellor. Difficult marriages lead to unhappy outcomes. In this case, it may be the worst death toll in Europe and soon the worst recession ever. The couple should fix their relationship as we move forward to the next stage of this long and painful journey. We have some advice for them.
Importantly, don’t treat the public like children. They are grown-ups. The politicians have the scientists centrestage with their slides, charts, graphs and diagrams; they put “follow the science” in the limelight, diluting responsibility over decision-making.
They say they are following the scientific “evidence”. Good. Now let the public see it, too. People want clear accountability which means clarity about the governance arrangements and the demarcation of advisory versus decision-making roles. The public want to know who is in charge.
There are too many organisations, too many cooks in the kitchen.
Communications are also important. The scientific case should not be “distorted” by the messaging. That needs more respect for plain English. “Testing” does not mean capacity to test. “Tested” does not mean tests sent by post. “Died of virus” is different from “died with virus”. Scientists should not be used as cover for the politicians who are ultimately responsible for policy making. Sometimes politicians have to make difficult decisions. They may choose not to follow scientific advice, but if they do they should make that clear, and give their reasons for doing so. It is part of being a leader.
Scientific understanding of Covid-19 is uncertain and tentative. It will change over time. Though communicating uncertainty is difficult, it is essential if trust is to be maintained. Uncertainties must be identified and assessed when scientific advice is given.
Uncertainties have many causes. They arise from problems with the limitation, analysis and interpretation of data. Take the epidemiological models developed to guide us through the pandemic. The reporting of models sometimes had 500,000 dead, the health system in collapse, no hospital beds for the sick. But were the models really explained? What were the assumptions made in them, the range of probabilities associated with different outcomes, the effects of corrective measures, the other models being made? All of this should be explained.
It is the same for the famous R number which is now driving whether we remain in or leave lockdown. Is it explained that the R number is an estimate based on modelling? Is it obvious that it is not a direct measurement and is subject to uncertainty? Do the politicians understand this, let alone the public?
It is not enough for politicians to say they are “following the science”, they need to understand the uncertainty in the science and to communicate it. When there are uncertainties there are speculations. Some are crazy, such as ingesting disinfectant is good for you and 5G towers are bad for you. These should be simply stamped on, especially when uttered by political leaders. Others are plausible but turn out to be wrong. If more people catch the disease, that leads to herd immunity. But that is not an option with Covid-19 because the disease is severe and leads to too many deaths.
When speculation does turn out to be wrong, it is important to admit it. Otherwise, members of the public stop believing you.
Trust is crucial. Trust has to be earned if the public are to have confidence in their political leaders and the scientists advising them. Trust is only possible if the scientific advice given is open, transparent, and properly communicated. This allows the evidence upon which the advice is based to be publicly assessed. It also makes it clear whether political leaders are following the science and, if they are not, forces them to justify their actions. Being open allows other scientists to challenge the evidence and its interpretation. This is required when knowledge is tentative and uncertain. There needs to be challenge and debate between scientists to advance understanding. That is how science works.
Differences of opinion should not be hidden but forced into the open. The whole interface between science and public policy needs to ensure that public trust is built, maintained and deserved.
We have learnt a lot. Let’s use that knowledge to help us move forward. Politics and science are an odd couple. Strange bedfellows. We know this well. One of us is a politician, the other a scientist. We all have to raise our game. The British public is among the most politically aware and sophisticated in the world. They should not be patronised. They deserve better.
We need a more mature relationship between scientists and policy makers. More humility, more honesty, more communication, more trust. All are needed now.
Sir Paul Nurse won the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2001. Lord Saatchi is a former chairman of the Conservative Party