Read on Twitter
With Xmas cancelled for many & all eyes on a new variant, we have an @instituteforgov report out on the way govt has used science advice in the crisis. Ministers have faced v tough choices but we call on them to address confused decision making and muddled communication [thread]
Science advice has been front and centre, ever since the PM addressed the nation flanked by Vallance and Whitty, insisting he would be “led by”/“follow” “the science”. But there has been confusion at the centre of govt about how to use it./2
Scientists HATED that phrase. It wrongly gave the impression they could give ministers advice or policy answers that could simply be “followed” (rather than used alongside other advice to make judgements). They felt they were being made ‘scapegoats’ /3
The phrase captured an issue that has continued throughout the crisis – ministers, especially the PM, have been unwilling to make judgements until the evidence appears overwhelming. This caused delay to first, second and latest lockdowns./4
Scientists have often struggled to understand ministers’ objectives, which made advising harder. It has been unclear what govt wanted to prioritise. In some cases – like return of universities – they were called in too late to be helpful./5
Decision making and advice has been fragmented. We have seen too much of science vs economics, little attempt to bring two together. May-June release of first lockdown arguably biggest mistake of crisis. Scientists not consulted on EOTHO, travel corridors…/6
Many politicians saying you can put economists etc on SAGE, but that outsources problem. We argue the govt needs a framework for bringing different analysis together in the Cabinet Office to form a coherent strategy. /7
The initial lack of transparency over SAGE membership & minutes and wider evidence was damaging, especially to confidence in policies such as reopening schools. This has now improved. Economic analysis shld be published too./8
More harmful has been ministers reluctance to explain and the trade-offs they are facing & rationale for measures. Ministers have often sought to defer this role to scientists/interminable slide shows /9
Govt needs to refresh its approach to communication - ministers need to do better job of explaining and persuading the public and MPs (this is essence of leadership in crisis). They should announce new measures in parliament & use scientist-led briefings where appropriate /10
Modelling has played a critical role. We find SAGE’s processes for producing modelling are incredibly robust, but modelling could at times have been presented more clearly, esp around RWC. / 11
The current situation over Xmas restrictions sets out problems we describe in the report in spades – decisions deferred or taken with unclear objectives, inconsistent and confusing comms /12
To make mistakes in a crisis caused by a novel disease for which the UK was unprepared is to be expected. To keep repeating them is less forgivable. /14
Lots more analysis and recommendations in the report, including ideas for future crises and how to strengthen the way advice is provided. /15 https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/science-advice-crisis_0.pdf
Last point: It is telling that many of the problems we describe were identified in the inquiries into previous crises (BSE, foot and mouth, swine flu) but not acted upon. Easy to focus during crisis; harder in "peacetime". Need sustained attention to be better prepared next time
