How did UK policymaking in the COVID-19 response use science? Evidence from scientific advisers

Background: Responses to COVID-19 have invested heavily in science. How this science was used is therefore important. Our work extends existing knowledge on the use of science in the pandemic by capturing scientific advisers’ experiences in real time.Aims and objectives: Our aim was to present generalisable messages on key qualifications or difficulties involved in speaking of ‘following the science’.Methods: Ninety-three interviews with UK scientific advisors and government officials captured their activities and perceptions during the pandemic in real time. We also examined Parliamentary Select Committee transcripts and government documents. This material was analysed for thematic content.Findings and discussion: (1) Many scientists sought guidance from policymakers about their goals, yet the COVID-19 response demonstrated the absence of a clear steer, and a tendency to change course quickly; (2) many scientists did not want to offer policy advice, but rather to provide evidence; and (3) a range of knowledge informed the UK’s pandemic response: we examine which kinds were privileged, and demonstrate the absence of clarity on how government synthesised the different forms of evidence being used.Conclusions: Understanding the reasons for a lack of clarity about policy goals would help us better understand the use of science in policy. Realisation that policy goals sometimes alter rapidly would help us better understand the logistics of scientific advice. Many scientists want their evidence to inform policy rather than determine the options selected. Since the process by which evidence leads to decisions is obscure, policy cannot be said to be evidence-based.<br />Key messages<br /><ul><li>Scientific advisors need to know policy goals, but these can be obscure and changeable.</li><br /><li>Many scientists want their evidence to inform policy rather than determine the policy selected.</li><br /><li>Evidence feeds into decisions in obscure ways, so policy cannot be said to be evidence-based.</li><br /><li>‘Evidence-informed’ policy is a more feasible aim than ‘evidence-based’ policy.</li></ul>

A Typology of Advisory Bodies in Legislatures and Research Perspectives

IntroductionRigorous scientific advice processes are becoming increasingly important and often used to develop evidence-informed policymaking. Most of the work has focused on investigating advisory processes for the Executive rather than for the Legislative branch. In this contribution, we developed a typology and evaluated current and emerging trends in legislative scientific advice processes. AimsThe aims of this work are to i) Develop a typology to inform academics about key characteristics and insights that can lead to new valuable research questions about legislative science advice, ii) Provide policymakers with information about scientific advice processes in legislatures worldwide so that they can use it for developing new or expand legislative advisory processes, iii) Evaluate emerging trends in scientific advice processes in legislatures for future research or practitioners' work.MethodsWe systematically analyzed literature for publications between 2014 and 2020 using Google Scholar, EBSCO, ScienceDirect, ProQuest, and JSTOR. We used pre-defined terminology related to scientific advice in legislatures to search for peer-reviewed articles and complemented the information of the advisory scientific advisory bodies found using cross-references and grey literature. The unit of analysis for creating the typology and subsequent analysis was the legislative scientific advice body itself.ConclusionWe developed a typology that includes 12 categories defined to provide insights about the contextual background, mandate, structure, and process of advice of legislative advisory bodies. The analysis indicates that advisory bodies in different countries have a wide degree of politicization, with many advisory bodies being considerably politicized. Moreover, most of the work focused on advisory units is in western and high-income countries. There are open opportunities for research, such as doing further comparative analyzes and investigating staff roles in advisory bodies. Lastly, we found that foresight and horizon scanning methodologies were increasingly implemented in legislatures for participatory future-forward thinking advice and to set long-term priorities in agendas.

How Good is the Science That Informs Government Policy? A Lesson From the U.K.’s Response to 2020 CoV-2 Outbreak

In an era when public faith in politicians is dwindling, yet trust in scientists remains relatively high, governments are increasingly emphasizing the role of science based policy-making in response to challenges such as climate change and global pandemics. In this paper we question the quality of some scientific advice given to governments and the robustness and transparency of the entire framework which envelopes such advice, all of which raise serious ethical concerns. In particular we focus on the so-called Imperial Model which heavily influenced the government of the United Kingdom in devising its response to the COVID-19 crisis. We focus on and highlight several fundamental methodological flaws of the model, raise concerns as to the robustness of the system which permitted these to remain unchallenged, and discuss the relevant ethical consequences.

Formal and informal science advice in emergencies: COVID-19 in the UK

The importance of scientific advice to government gains greater recognition in emergencies but inevitably has to be done in an environment of uncertainty, with limited data and at high speed. Adapting existing structures is more effective than creating new ones in an emergency. Between emergencies, the UK has a structured scientific advice system, including Chief Scientific Advisers, scientists in government, regulatory bodies and independent expert committees, which were adapted to COVID-19 under the umbrella of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. These worked alongside networks of informal scientific advice, including internationally. Multiple sciences were needed, including from the social sciences and engineering in addition to clinical science and epidemiology, and these had to be integrated. A centrally directed clinical research programme helped provide practitioners robust evidence, with observational and interventional trials providing data for policy and testing treatments and vaccines. The scale of the emergency meant unavoidable tension between detailed work and speed, and between an integrated scientific view usable in decision-making and constructive challenge. While a final judgement of the UK scientific response will take time, everyone should be grateful to the thousands of scientists involved for the research, synthesis and advice, which improved outcomes for the public.

In harm’s way, but not stressed about it: On the antecedents and consequences of belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories

Conspiracy theories proliferate during times of turmoil. Not surprisingly, the COVID-19 pandemic has created an environment in which virus-related conspiracy theories have thrived. The current study leverages prior research to shed light on the antecedents and consequences of conspiracy theory beliefs in the important, real-world context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, we found that suffering greater negative economic consequences due to the pandemic predicted greater belief in COVID-19 conspiracy theories, and this relation was strongest among those generally inclined to believe conspiracy theories. We then examined the consequences of coming to hold such beliefs. Greater endorsement of COVID-19 conspiracy theories predicted less social distancing behavior, greater minimization of the threat of COVID-19, and lower levels of general stress. These findings replicate and extend prior research showing a link between conspiracy theory beliefs and rejection of scientific advice, but also offer evidence pointing to a psychological benefit of believing conspiracy theories.

World practice of providing scientific advice on the development and authorisation of innovative medicines

Current challenges to healthcare, i.e. the emergence of new diseases, lack of therapies for known diseases and life-threatening conditions, identification of patients who do not respond to standard treatment, on the one hand, and the evolution of scientific understanding of disease processes, medicines, therapies, causes of treatment failures, and implementation in clinical practice of innovations related to molecular biology and genetic engineering, on the other hand, create conditions and opportunities for the development of innovative medicinal products. A relatively new class of medicines is based on human cells and tissues (the term used in Russian legislation is biomedical cell products, BCP). However, the inability to accurately predict the efficacy and financial rewards of such medicines for pharmaceutical companies, as well as significant labour and financial costs associated with their development and clinical use, hinder their entry into the market. The aim of the study was to analyse the foreign regulatory setting for the development and launch of human cell- and tissue-based products, as well as approaches of foreign regulatory authorities to scientific advice, which can be drawn upon by the Russian expert authority when providing advice to BCP developers. The paper summarises the results of analysis of regulations establishing the procedure for providing scientific advice by EU, USA, and Russian regulatory authorities, and analyses the advice provided for the human cell- and tissue-based products which are now authorised in the EU and USA. The analysis of advice provided by foreign regulatory authorities shows that the largest number of consultations were given for medicinal products based on genetically modified cells for the treatment of cancer and genetic diseases. The questions were mainly related to the contents of specifications for finished pharmaceutical products, safety evaluation, curtailing of preclinical studies due to the lack of relevant animal/disease models, the number of subjects and efficacy endpoints in clinical studies, assessment of the appearance of replication-competent retroviruses.