More transparent scientific advice on coronavirus measures should help the government and the public

It is easy to dismiss Sir David King’s newly-formed advisory panel of independent scientific experts. He is a former government chief scientific adviser who seems reluctant to leave centre stage – and has a habit of making life more difficult for his successors. That may well be how the current chief scientific adviser, the chief medical officer and members of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE) see King’s parallel group on “the science” – not least because the public may be more tempted to place their faith in a body which is seemingly compromised of more independent advisers than those in government. 

However, King's group can serve a useful purpose – and help to improve the government's own approach to scientific advice.

Sir David King’s new group can potentially play a useful role in educating the public and MPs

Since the coronavirus outbreak took hold, ministers have cited “the science” as though it is a monolith that dictates a single policy direction. But in an area where knowledge is rapidly developing, and where different scientific disciplines bring differing perspectives on any given problem, advice will be hedged with uncertainty and the need to reflect a wide range of views. SAGE hides that reality behind closed doors. The King group – which promises to conduct its hearings in public – will play a useful role if it exposes those debates to MPs (it intends to send its findings to the Health and Social Care select committee) and the public.

A lack of transparency over SAGE’s membership, and a reluctance to release its deliberations, has fuelled critics such as King. They suspect that SAGE is giving convenient advice to government so that ministers can repeat the mantra that their actions are dictated by a rigid adherence to the science. One positive from this group would be if it spurred greater transparency from government.

That usefulness will be undermined if it just becomes a focal point for government critics

We have yet to see a full list of the members of the King group. It is possible that it just becomes a haven for those who are sceptical about the government. This would undermine its usefulness while also jeopardising both its credibility and that of the government’s advisers. 

King, and other critics of the government’s handling of the outbreak, have hardly lacked access to the media in recent weeks – and another forum for their criticism will not take the debate forward. There is a risk that King uses the panel to pursue his critique of the lack of independence in science advice in government – and, implicitly, of the current top scientific advisers. Given King’s well-established position, there is a case to be made for him to step aside from the role of convenor.

Science advice alone will not be enough to determine the best lockdown exit strategy

Government has repeatedly said that it is guided by the science. When it comes to lifting the coronavirus lockdown, however, science can never be the sole guide. Ministers can receive science advice – but they have to make the critical judgements about how that shapes government policy. The five tests that ministers have set out for lifting lockdown are all about supressing the spread of Covid-19 and making sure the NHS is not overwhelmed. But as ministers approach the next phase, they need to take account of a much wider range of factors: death and harm from non-Covid causes, and the impacts of long-term economic and social scarring on a generation who could find its life chances dramatically reduced as a result of the government’s response.

The easiest stick for scientists to beat the government with is to accuse ministers of prioritising the economy over people’s lives and livelihoods. Sir David King’s tenure as chief scientific adviser was defined by his handling of the management of foot and mouth disease outbreak in 2001, but he since been criticised for an approach which “shut down the countryside” and inflicted more harm to the rural economy than a less stringently controlled spread of foot and mouth would have done.

The risk of his new group is that it fails to balance advice over effective infection management with wider considerations. If it is to play a useful role, it must draw from a range of disciplines that reflect the complexity of the decisions that ministers have to make and, at the very least, makes clear the costs as well as the benefits.