This article was originally published on the Policy & Politics blog.
Pandemic politics saw governments repeatedly claim to be “just following the science.” In the face of widespread anxiety and uncertainty, this mantra was meant to reassure the public that decisions about pandemic responses were being directed by the best available scientific evidence. But making policy decisions based only on scientific evidence is impossible (if only because ‘the science’ is always contested) and undemocratic (because governments are elected to balance a range of priorities and interests in their decisions). Claiming to be “just following the science” therefore represents an abdication of responsibility by politicians. Working with colleagues, we advanced these bold claims in a recent article published in Policy & Politics that is part of our long-running research program on public health governance.
The inherent limits of ‘evidence-based’ policy have been repeatedly described and analysed. We know that policy and programme choices are never based solely on the available scientific evidence. So why did politicians claim to be “just following the science,” and what are the implications of doing so?
To begin to address this question, we examined a sample of national newspapers in Australia, Canada, and the UK. We analysed incidents where national and subnational political leaders claimed that their pandemic policy and programme choices were led by science. This was often framed as following the advice from their Chief Medical Officers (CMOs). In some cases, politicians and those who disagreed with government policy choices presented CMOs as decision-makers on contentious issues, thereby suggesting that public health decisions were solely determined by scientific advisors rather than elected leaders.
The findings laid bare an unsettling truth. We show how the phrase “following the science” often wasn’t so much about adhering strictly to scientific advice as it was about deflecting blame for policy failures or unpalatable decisions. References to scientific advice morphed from an exercise in legitimation to a shield to fend off criticism.
When confronted with an existential health threat, what is the harm in allowing public health advisors and scientific experts to bear some blame when things go wrong? In short, this is not how the government is supposed to work. In mature democratic countries, credit and blame for government decisions are borne by elected politicians, not those appointed to advise them. In our Policy & Politics article, we argue that to do otherwise is to weaken the established convention of ministerial responsibility. When the government makes a decision, all members of the Cabinet are expected to support it. It is an abdication of this responsibility to suggest that a decision is just following the plan or simply following the advice of officials.
Our research extends what we know about blame games to cases where senior public servants risk being publicly blamed and thereby having their credibility undermined. It also provides new insights into using scientific advice in policymaking during times of crisis. Perhaps most importantly, it raises crucial questions about the juncture of science and politics and how the latter can manipulate the former for political gains.
If you enjoyed this blog post, you may also be interested to read:
Bates, G., Ayres, S., Barnfield, A., & Larkin, C. (2023). What types of health evidence persuade policy actors in a complex system?, Policy & Politics, 51(3), 386-412 from https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16814103714008
Hill O’Connor, C., Smith, K., & Stewart, E. (2023). Integrating evidence and public engagement in policy work: an empirical examination of three UK policy organisations, Policy & Politics, 51(2), 271-294 from https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16698031794569
Simons, A., & Schniedermann, A. (2021). The neglected politics behind evidence-based policy: shedding light on instrument constituency dynamics, Policy & Politics, 49(4), 513-529 from https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16225469993170
Analysing the ‘follow the science’ rhetoric of government responses to COVID-19, Policy & Politics by Margaret MacAulay, Patrick Fafard, Adèle Cassola, and Michèle Palkovits for Policy & Politics is available to read Open Access on Bristol University Press Digital here.
Follow Transforming Society so we can let you know when new articles are published.
The views and opinions expressed on this blog site are solely those of the original blog post authors and other contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of Bristol University Press and/or any/all contributors to this site.
Image credit: Photo by Parastoo Maleki on Unsplash