Scientists advise, ministers decide? The role of scientific expertise in UK policymaking during the coronavirus pandemic
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 12598591 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Nikolas Koch (0000-0001-6917-9318, University of Bath, corresponding author), Bill Durodié (0000-0002-9968-9551, University of Bath) |
| Year | 2022 |
| Volume | 25 |
| Issue | 10 |
| Pages | 1213-1222 |
| Publication date | 2022-09-01 |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Risk Research (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1366-9877 • E-ISSN: 1466-4461 |
| Publisher | Routledge (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/13669877.2022.2116083 |
| OpenAlex | W4294024799 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 6 |
| References cited | 21 |
COVID-19 has been a transformational crisis, uprooting everyday lives and causing some of the most significant health, social, and economic challenges in recent memory. Similarly, coronavirus has also forced significant political change, refocusing attention on politics and policymaking structures during a time of crisis. This shift is exemplified by scientific advisers’ role at the forefront of governmental decision-making. Scientific advice has provided vital knowledge and insight into the government’s pandemic responses.However, the coronavirus pandemic has also highlighted the complex nature of combining science with politics, as well as the difficulties involved in distinguishing between expert advice and political or moral choices. Such complexity warrants a reconsideration of science’s impact on policymaking. Namely, from a long-term view, the growth of governmental experts started well before the coronavirus pandemic. Partly, this proliferation is driven by a desire to improve policymaking, given that there is a clear need to effectively consult, consider, and act on the advice of experts in all fields of government.Nevertheless, societal changes like a declining trust in government also mean that expert advice can increasingly be used as a tool to legitimate or depoliticise debates. Considering the complexity of fighting a global pandemic, this belies that advice must be effectively scrutinised within broader contextual or operational considerations – a government cannot simply ‘follow the science’. Coronavirus highlights the need for a renewed focus on the interplay of expertise and policymaking, considering who, why, and on what basis governments are advised – as well as what lessons they draw from it
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19 · Government (linguistics · Pandemic · Political science · Politics · Public relations · Sociology · Employment and Welfare Studies · Healthcare Systems and Challenges · Law · Medicine · Political and Economic history of UK and US · Public Administration
‘Follow the science’
Contesting state expertise after Covid-19
The influence of Covid-19 Mortality Rate Formats on Emotional Reactions, Risk perception, and self-protective Behavioral Intentions
Challenging the State? Lawyers and the Reformed Administrative Appeals System in Japan
Analysing the ‘follow the science’ rhetoric of government responses to Covid-19
The Problem of Fit and National Leadership Needs in Transboundary Crises
Scientific expertise and political accountability
The Role of Experts in the Covid-19 Pandemic and the Limits of Their Epistemic Authority in Democracy
Democracy in a Global Emergency
Performing rituals of affliction
Recalibrating pandemic risk leadership
Covid-19
Pandemic democracy
Strategy for a Pandemic
Scientific Advice at a Time of Emergency. Sage and Covid‐19
The public policy of the European Union
Foot-and-Mouth 2001
The Politics of Blame Avoidance
| Citations per year | 2 |
|---|---|
| Citation span | 2023 - 2026 (4) |
| Highly cited | No |