TThe Covid investigation has shown us that within Number 10 there was a combination of arguments, chaos and incompetence that can best be described as an absurdist tragedy. The obvious conclusion is: “don’t elect someone like Boris Johnson” – who in evidence has been portrayed as a mad king, sitting on his throne, vacillating between “let it rip” and “lock everyone up”, and ridiculous offers YouTube-derived remedies like blow-drying your nose to keep Covid away. Although it may seem as if witness after witness are sticking a new knife into a dead carcass, rather than implicating the then Chancellor Rishi Sunak, the former Health Secretary Matt Hancock, or the former Education Secretary Gavin Williamson.
But sometimes we will have weak leaders who do not fit the times. As a public health scientist I am more concerned about the role of scientists and scientific advice during the pandemic. Here it is worth zooming in on the roles of the then chief scientific advisorSir Patrick Vallance, and the Head of medical serviceProf. Chris Whitty.
What is now clear is that Whitty and Vallance were observers in a completely dysfunctional system, often privately expressing their frustrations and opposition to messages and policies. For example, they raised the dangers of Sunak’s ‘eat out to help out’ plan, which Whitty called ‘eat out to help out the virus’. Despite their disapproval, the idea went ahead and was involved in the second wave of infections. As more of Vallance’s diary entries become public, it is clear that both advisers’ views were often marginalised, and ultimately had limited influence on Number 10’s decision-making.
But when they appeared in interviews or alongside Johnson in daily news conferences, none of their concerns were publicly expressed. Both reinforced the government’s message, and their daily presence alongside the Prime Minister made them appear supportive and in line with the policies and direction the country was taking. They made the ‘mad king’ seem believable to the audience. Too often they were used by a dysfunctional government to appear competent and scientifically literate.
I remember seeing this at the time and becoming increasingly frustrated by what seemed like tacit support for a government that was costing people their lives and livelihoods. On May 28, 2020, I wrote Whitty an email outlining my concerns (I’m sharing this now as it is a public document and shared with the research team). I wrote: “I am quite surprised at the way science is used as a shield for political decisions – and at the use of the phrase ‘follow the science’ when it is clear that scientists around the world would not come to that conclusion nor the WHO Health Emergencies Team with whom I work closely.”
“It is concerning (and not just for me, but for a number of younger scientists),” I continued, “to see respected senior clinicians being used to justify decisions that are clearly not good for public health. Today was a clear example of this: being silenced by the Prime Minister and unable to answer a question that has clear public health implications, especially for a TTI (Test-and-Trace Initiative) program that requires voluntary compliance . This will have lasting consequences for scientists as a whole, for the role of independent advisors, but also for the reputation of those who stood behind a government that is clearly making decisions that are harmful to the health of its citizens. I understand that you may be willing to compromise and use influence behind the scenes, but this reminds me of a quote: When you try to influence the powerful, who is actually influencing whom? Looking back on the past three months, to what extent has science actually influenced the decisions that are made?”
Scientific influence takes many forms. I was someone who tried to educate the public about the crisis and could speak independently, as I had no formal government role. Operating this way usually means you are locked out of the room. Government is too often about confidentiality, closed doors and discretion. Speaking openly means that you are not invited ‘into the room where it happens’.
The Scottish Government took a different approach and decided to bring critics into the audience to help diversify the views expressed and avoid groupthink. They invited me to an advisory group in early April 2020, along with other academics, and this provided a formal channel to provide input and advice. But we could say what we liked in our public work and not get paid.
I haven’t had a chance to talk to Whitty and Vallance about their experiences yet. They are both incredibly respected, intelligent and public-spirited individuals; those who have worked with them praise their professionalism and resilience. I assume their position is one of “harm reduction”: speaking out or resigning would have meant an even worse situation. They also both faced terrible public abuse and harassment for roles in which they tried to steer the Mad King in a sensible direction.
Maybe we need people who stay at the table, who keep trying to influence behind closed doors, because it’s even worse not to have competent people there. Outside pressure has its limits. But the political pressure on them was clear, like Vallance notes that they objected to appearing at a press conference in the wake of Dominic Cummings’ lockdown scandal, fearing it would give the impression that Cummings was getting political cover. He wrote that they “tried to get out of it by suggesting that this was not the right day to announce new measures, and that this will undermine our credibility. No luck.”
We need scientific advisors who work as civil servants within government, to help influence politicians and inform them directly. But we must remember that while they are “independent” of any political party, they do not have the freedom to speak openly to the public or say what they think. They seem to have to follow the government’s line, even if they know that what is being done is harmful, and if they do not agree with what is being said or done. This makes it difficult for the public to believe what government advisors say – it’s obvious they are limited by their position and their desire to remain in the inner circle.
In contrast, independent academics are usually employed by universities, where freedom of expression is protected. The result is that we have less policy influence and are distanced from decision-making and key leaders. Potential scientific solutions to everything from pandemics to climate change come most powerfully from government advisors – but are they capable of doing so in the current system? Or are they muzzled by personal and ideological interference from politicians?
The Covid research has exposed the shortcomings of the current setup. Perhaps the power and independence of government advisors should be reexamined, or truly independent advisory groups should be brought in. If nothing changes, the public will have little reason to “trust the science” during the next crisis.