No.10’s response to the Guardian’s SAGE scoop - trying to downplay political advisers’ participation as routine - fails to address the fundamental point, as raised by @Sir_David_King, that this is far from normal. And he should know, as a former @uksciencechief.
It also contravenes the second of the government’s own principles of scientific advice to government - “scientific advisers should be free from political interference with their work” gov.uk/government/pub…
As regards Cummings in particular, there are echoes here of his other interventions in science policy. Talking to several scientists who attended No.10 meetings on S&I funding back in the summer/autumn, one striking aspect was the extent to which those present, who included
Vallance, were deferential to DC’s half-baked ideas about reforming the system. The leadership of the science community then rolled over & endorsed proposals for an £800m “UK ARPA”, which began life as a DC blogpost, & for which a properly-evidenced case has never been made.
DC’s defenders say he’s a “science fanboy”, & it’s clear he cares about science. But what links all of these interventions is an alarming arrogance & hubris: a belief that because he’s read a few Nature articles & been to SciFoo, he can somehow cut it as a credentialed expert.
First on science funding, now pandemics - what will be next..?
There are also serious questions for @uksciencechief to answer about why he allowed this blurring of SAGE’s role, & whether the secrecy that’s blanketed it is in part an effort to cover up the role of No.10 advisers.
In absence of far greater clarity and transparency, this has effectively shredded the reputation of the UK science advisory system, & makes a mockery of daily ministerial claims to be following “the science” as somehow distinct from political decision-making.
Longer-term, as another former CSA emailed me last night: “This episode may have done major harm to the whole concept of a CSA and SAGE.”
