We are learning a lot – including how to do things better next time

Debate and challenge is at the very heart of how scientific advances are made and new knowledge is gained. By definition we often don’t know the answers to the questions we ask.

And right now, in a global pandemic, people are understandably worried about what the future holds and are looking to the science for answers.

As we wrestle with this disease, I want to explain a bit about the scientific advice being given to the Government and the people working morning, noon and night to help us navigate this new disease. Perhaps now is a good time to clarify exactly what Sage is, and what it is not.

Sage is stood up for government emergencies at the request of Cobra, and when the emergency is a health one it is co-chaired by the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser and the Chief Medical Officer.

It is made up of scientists with diverse relevant expertise, who for this emergency have since January been crunching data, analysing information and giving frank and objective advice.

The participants vary depending on the topic and the expertise needed, but there has been a core of scientists who have attended most meetings.

For Covid it has included academics, clinicians, departmental chief scientific advisers and scientists from the NHS, Public Health England and other bodies including the devolved administrations. Good science involves sharing findings and interpretations for others to challenge, build on and replicate. Scientists publish their models, methods and results and subject them to review by their peers, for critique and reuse by others.

If you sign up to science, you sign up to the idea that others should review your work. We learn from each other and we learn from mistakes. We have published some of the evidence behind the advice that has gone to ministers.

Clearly it is right that ministers see the advice first and that they have a chance to consider it as part of their overall decision making, but I believe it is also right that the evidence base should become open for others to see too, so they can provide challenge and form new and important observations.

Science advice to Cobra and to ministers needs to be direct and given without fear or favour. But it is advice, ministers must decide and have to take many other factors into consideration. In a democracy, that is the only way it should be. The science advice needs to be independent of politics. In the past, evidence from Sage has been published at the end of the particular crisis it was called for. In the days before Sage existed, science advice to government was often not published at all.

When it comes to this crisis we must get the information out as soon as possible, and as close to real time as is feasible and compatible with allowing ministers the time they need.

As the Sage papers become available it is possible to track the evolution of thinking. It is possible to see how unknowns became known and where significant gaps in knowledge still exist. The papers also provide a chance to correct some of the misconceptions that have taken hold.

Sage is not an infallible body of experts and nor is there cosy group think. There is a range of opinions in the discussions and there is wide reading of the latest research, but what Sage endeavours to do is come down to a position or a range of positions, to provide options ministers could consider and explain the uncertainties and assumptions inherent in that science and evidence.

Is the evidence usually crystal clear? No. And you only need to pick up a newspaper or watch the TV to see how strongly different scientists have presented diametrically opposed ideas, and how some have flipped from certainty to uncertainty and back again. Will the advice from Sage always be right? No. Will the science change as we learn more? Of course. But the evidence we present to ministers will always be based on a careful analysis of the science available at the time.

As a civil servant and the Government’s Chief Scientific Adviser, I am very aware of the responsibility and trust invested in me and the army of scientists and experts during this crisis. In the years to come, when this awful disease is no longer shaping all of our lives, I know I will look back with gratitude and admiration for what these scientists did to help understanding and provide advice in the face of uncertainty. I also know that we will have learned a lot, including how to do it better next time. That is science.