Thread by @NObermeister

Excited to share latest article, published with @SpringerNature in @PalCommsOA, on why we might want to pay closer attention to experts’ learning when advising #policymakers. Given the timing: a short(ish) thread on its relevance for #COVID19, below /1👉🏻 rdcu.be/b3Rs9

In the aftermath of the #coronavirus pandemic, we’ll need an evaluation of ‘what happened’ and ‘what went wrong’. For the whole picture, we can’t just rely on the loudest or the most visible voices. We need to turn to those scientific advisers whose stories go largely untold. /2

Through their engagements with policymakers/politicians, experts learn the delicate balancing act of #scienceadvice. They learn what is and isn’t appropriate behaviour, what is and isn’t politically acceptable, and to draw the line where #science ‘ends’ and #politics ‘begins’. /3

They may have learned that discretion is highly valued by policymakers. Not only because it serves governments’ interests, but also because advisers are under pressure to present a ‘unified front’= fear that exposing disagreements will undermine the authority of their advice. /4

But without public trust in advisers’ independence and integrity, the ecosystems of science advice cannot function. In the UK, there have been pressing calls for publishing the advice of SAGE and others. Will transparency be in the interest or at the expense of trust? /5

There are concerns that scientific advisers have been too complacent and/or that the science is too ‘politicised’. For lack of being told by policymakers what they want to hear, and to uphold their independence, advisers rely on their perceptions of the demand for science. /6

Could they have anticipated that draconian measures would end up being politically acceptable? That their advice – which is routinely ignored – would have become central to all national #decisionmaking? That they would be afforded extraordinary powers? /7

Like the curve we’re now all accustomed to, the learning curve of advisers throughout this #crisis is likely to be steep. Only by turning to their personal experiences can we understand why and how the delicate balancing act of science advice mutated during the #pandemic. /8

We need to understand why the acquired skillset of scientific advisers may not be suited for crisis situations. Only then can we ensure that lessons are learnt and that our ecosystems of science advice are prepared for future emergencies. /9

Finally, we’ll need to talk to the scientific advisers involved to determine who (or what) needs to be held to account for poor decision-making. Will individual scientific advisers have to bear the blame, or will the current ecosystems of science advice need some rethinking? /10