Covid-19 and the Paradox of Scientific Advice

Bibliographic Data

ID6319247
AuthorsZeynep Pamuk (0000-0003-0057-0495, corresponding author)
Year2022
Volume20
Issue2
Pages562-576
Publication date2022-06-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePerspectives on Politics (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1537-5927 • E-ISSN: 1541-0986
PublisherCambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1017/s1537592721001201
OpenAlexW3175116023
LanguageEN
Citations received21
References cited40

The scientific advisory committee is a neglected political institution whose importance became clear during the COVID-19 pandemic. What I call “the paradox of scientific advice” consists in that the two basic expectations from scientific advisory committees—neutrality and usefulness—are inherently in tension. To be useful, advisers must help governments set and attain their goals. Judgments about values and ends are necessary for useful advice, as are subjective judgments in the face of uncertainty and disagreement. This puts the committee in a double bind: if it tries to be more useful, it compromises the neutrality that is the source of its authority and legitimacy; if it tries to remain neutral, it sacrifices usefulness. I argue that this dilemma cannot be solved within the committee but that broader democratic scrutiny could mitigate its force. Advisory committees, in turn, should be structured to facilitate this scrutiny

Advice (programming · Advisory committee · Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19 · Democracy · Democratic legitimacy · Dilemma · Epistemology · Face (sociological concept · Institution · Law and economics · Legitimacy · Neutrality · Political science · Politics · Public relations · Scrutiny · Set (abstract data type · Social science · Sociology · Computer Science · Ethics in medical practice · Feminist Epistemology and Gender Studies · Healthcare Systems and Challenges · Law · Medicine · Public Administration

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access