Science Policy and Crises Emily Douglas As the coronavirus pandemic has unfolded, the relationship between science and policy has become more relevant than ever. There is pressure for the production of accurate scientific knowledge to create informed policy, however the relationship is rarely simple or linear. The UK government has emphasised that they have used ‘the best science available’ for creating policy – does such a thing exist? Or is it simply science that best matches their own political beliefs? This is hardly the first time this phenomenon has existed – the interface of science and policy has been contested in climate change for decades, demonstrating a need to evaluate the relationship between them. Science is often presented in stasis – it is objective, un-changing and without bias. However, this is certainly not the case, both in relation to Covid-19 and the climate crisis. In the production of knowledge itself, different methodologies, theoretical approaches and underlying philosophies are used, especially in subjects as broad and complex as health and climate crises, which can generate debate in these communities. Science is produced by individuals with differing interests, as well as career pressures – everyone wants to produce the science that informs policy. This may generate subtle biases, and, in extreme cases, has led to malpractice (such as the infamous ‘Climategate’ scandal). If the science itself is not apolitical, its use in policy is always a political choice. For example, SAGE (the UK’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies) may seek advice on how to prevent certain scenarios such as economic slowdown, and seek scientific advice with this policy in mind, rather than review the science before creation of policy.
What politicians prioritise relates to their own agenda – some argue the late move into lockdown was done in the hope of preserving the economy in relation to Covid-19, while for neoliberal, conservative governments in the West, the overhaul of energy infrastructure represents state investment that doesn’t match their beliefs. Science can be used as a means for achieving political goals; acting as an ‘objective’ justification. Another similarity can be noticed between the need to address intersectional inequalities presented by both crises. Studies indicate that Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups in the UK are more likely to die from Coronavirus, which can be attributed to structural racism. This greater degree of vulnerability was, and continues to be, overlooked in the handling of the crisis, with many models failing to account for racial disparities in death tolls. Likewise, the IPCC’s report in October 2018 stated we have 12 years to limit the effects of climate change, however many areas of the world are much more vulnerable, and will face climate departure (irreversible, significant climate changes) far earlier, such as the cities of Malé, Kingston and Lagos. Therefore, it is imperative that we do not consider policy as ‘one-size-fits-all’, and instead acknowledge the vulnerabilities of different groups, in both the production of science itself, but also in the subsequent policy modelled on it. There is a myth that climate change is the ‘Great Equalizer’, as it is a global issue that affects everyone. The same could be said for the Covid-19 pandemic. However, this is far from the truth – as the effects are disproportionate to certain groups, it will be anything but equal.
9
