Spot on--> "it is not possible for scientists to give frank advice if they feel that they will be made the scapegoats for difficult policy decisions" Venki Ramakrishnan @royalsociety theguardian.com/world/2020/may…
But at the same time, scientific advisors have a responsibility to know what science advisory roles make sense in different contexts. Rarely is advocacy for a single (or recommended) course of action going to be appropriate "science advice" to governments.
To the degree that science advice is indistinguishable from advocacy for a preferred course of action, the greater degree that scientists invite some degree of accountability for decision making & blur the notion that advisors advise and decision makers decide.
Far too rarely are science advisory bodies explicit about the role(s) that they are expected to play leading to some confusion at best and misplaced accountability at worst
All science advisory bodies should be explicit about the scope & substance of their expected advisory roles
All science advisory bodies should be explicit about the scope & substance of their expected advisory roles
