Sage advisers forced on to the sidelines
Scientists complain that new Joint Biosecurity Centre’s work and staffing is ‘shrouded in mystery’
The Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies appears to have been sidelined as ministers take more direct control of the coronavirus crisis. Scientists last night expressed concern, as an expanded Joint Biosecurity Centre will take a more prominent role and Sage – led by Sir Patrick Vallance, the Chief Scientific Adviser, and Prof Chris Whitty, the Chief Medical Officer – will meet less frequently, as its subgroups advise the Government directly.
THE Scientific Advisory Group on Emergencies (Sage) appears to have been sidelined as ministers take more direct control of the coronavirus crisis.
Now, an expanded Joint Biosecurity Centre (JBC) will take a more prominent role co-ordinating the virus response.
Last month, Downing Street appointed a senior spy to lead the unit, monitor the spread of coronavirus, advise ministers on the “alert level” for the virus and recommend actions to suppress new outbreaks.
Now, it has emerged that Sage – led by Sir Patrick Vallance, the Chief Scientific Adviser, and Prof Chris Whitty, the Chief Medical Officer – will meet less frequently, as its subgroups directly advise the Government.
Scientists last night expressed concern, saying the work of the new unit was “shrouded in mystery”.
A member of one Sage subcommittee, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Daily Telegraph that it had been “mentioned in passing that they would now report directly to ministers”. They were told by officials that they had been “doing a lot of work” and they were reducing their sitting hours to reduce the burden on them.
The scientists in one group said they were surprised to be told they would not be meeting at all during August.
The source questioned what the purpose of Sage would be if the committee no longer had access to evidence from subgroups, which they considered before reporting to the Government.
Sage said working groups would advise government departments directly, and “support them more directly” but not report straight to ministers.
Sage meetings have been reduced from twice to once a week, and in future will occur whenever deemed necessary, sources said.
Prof Susan Michie, who sits on the behavioural science subcommittee and on Sage, criticised a lack of transparency over the moves, saying the work of the JBC was “shrouded in secrecy”.
“In order to get trust, it is really important that there is openness, transparency and an explanation of the basis on which advice is given,” she said.
“We know little about this new body and who is on it. Who are the scientists? What are the criteria used for selecting them? What is the governance and accountability? There are scientists on Sage who work for universities and are independent, but the new body appears to be a government command and control operation.”
Prof Michie, the director of the UCL Centre for Behaviour Change, added:
“I think that this is circumventing Sage. There has been no explanation as to why there is a change in the system, it appears to have been set up without transparency or an explanation of the rationale.”
Sage itself was widely criticised for a lack of transparency at the start of the crisis, and it took months before the group’s membership was revealed.
The scientific advice behind the Government’s strategy has repeatedly come under scrutiny, with concern that it has left Britain too slow in its response, and late to adopt policies such as use of face coverings.
Prof Robert Dingwall, a member of the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group, said: “Experience has shown that the present structures are not ideal, although I am not sure that the JBC is the right way to go.” He expressed concern that there was little public information about the unit’s staffing and working, calling for a commitment to transparency in its advice and reports.
A Sage member who sits on the modelling
‘We know little about this body. Who are the scientists? What are the criteria used for selecting them?’
subgroup, said: “There was a lot of criticism in March and April about the anonymity of Sage. It seems like we’re back there, no one really knows who is on the JBC and so we’re now in a situation where we’re not quite clear of the expertise of people on the JBC, who are now taking responsibility for advising the Government going forward.”
A senior government source said the changes had been implemented because the nature of the UK’S response to the pandemic was changing.
They said much of the Government’s decision making was now based on how to manage exiting the lockdown. This meant ministers were increasingly concerned with the testing data being collected by the JBC, used to identify and monitor local outbreaks.
They said Sage would still play an important role in analysing the risks of a second wave of the virus and providing advice on winter preparedness.
A Sage spokesman said its scientists would continue to provide ministers with “a single consensus view of scientific advice” to inform its response.
They added: “The JBC will complement the work of Sage, providing more operational focus including data analysis and epidemiological expertise, with the aim of ensuring that outbreaks of coronavirus are detected and brought under control quickly.”
The committee recommended the creation of JBC, formed to help the UK’S chief medical officers set the threat levels in each of the four nations.
Last month, Dr Clare Gardiner, the head of cyber resilience and strategy at the National Cyber Security Centre, part of GCHQ, became the JBC’S first director-general.