THE CONVERSATION — In a recent special issue of the (BMJ), commentators for Canada’s COVID-19 response in the form of an independent public inquiry. If such an inquiry is held, it must examine how — and with what consequences — politicians’ pandemic messaging deflected responsibility for controversial decisions onto scientific evidence and experts.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, it was common to hear politicians say that they were “just following the science” when explaining their policies. Although this may sound like a prudent way to tackle a public health crisis, such claims can be misleading about both science and government.
Such claims also risk damaging the credibility of the very scientific experts who are crucial to an effective public health response.
Decisions and ‘the science’
Scientific evidence and advice should be a key element of elected leaders’ decision-making in a public health emergency. However, this does not mean that scientific evidence should be the only input into such decisions, or that scientific advisors are responsible for those decisions. Yet this was how “following the science” rhetoric by politicians in Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom during the pandemic.
This messaging implied that there was such a thing as “the science,” and that it could tell politicians what to do. But as we saw repeatedly in the context of COVID-19, the scientific evidence (and experts’ interpretation of it) is , constantly and of the specific needs of diverse population groups.
Science can guide decisions, but it is not a magic eight-ball .
Policy and evolving evidence
Even if science could provide unambiguous answers, there are compelling reasons why it should not be the only consideration in public health decision-making. In representative democracies, politicians are elected to make decisions that balance multiple priorities and interests — including scientific evidence, but also economic impacts, budgets, ethics, equity, time constraints and public opinion.
This is one reason why governments in the same country or region with access to the same scientific evidence and advice made different decisions about addressing the spread of COVID-19. Governments wrestled with — and came to different decisions about — issues such as balancing the virus-containment benefits of with the implications for children’s well-being and parents’ labour participation.
In a recent special issue of the (BMJ), commentators for Canada’s COVID-19 response in the form of an independent public inquiry. If such an inquiry is held, it must examine how — and with what consequences — politicians’ pandemic messaging deflected responsibility for controversial decisions onto scientific evidence and experts.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, it was common to hear politicians say that they were “just following the science” when explaining their policies. Although this may sound like a prudent way to tackle a public health crisis, such claims can be misleading about both science and government.
Such claims also risk damaging the credibility of the very scientific experts who are crucial to an effective public health response.
Messaging and mistrust
Misleading the public about the role of scientific advisors in decision-making can also undermine public trust in scientific advisors, particularly when policy decisions inevitably change or are controversial.
In a recent special issue of the (BMJ), commentators for Canada’s COVID-19 response in the form of an independent public inquiry. If such an inquiry is held, it must examine how — and with what consequences — politicians’ pandemic messaging deflected responsibility for controversial decisions onto scientific evidence and experts.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, it was common to hear politicians say that they were “just following the science” when explaining their policies. Although this may sound like a prudent way to tackle a public health crisis, such claims can be misleading about both science and government.
Such claims also risk damaging the credibility of the very scientific experts who are crucial to an effective public health response.
Trust and transparency
Where should governments in Canada go from here? An independent national inquiry that investigates () the implications of politicians’ distancing themselves from their decisions would be an important start.
It is in politicians’ interest to maintain relationships of trust with their senior public health officials, and between those officials and the public. Trust matters not just for managing the , but for tackling the major public health challenges of our time, including health inequities, the opioid epidemic and the existential threat of climate change.
Politicians should realize that deflecting blame onto “the science” in their messaging is a short-term solution that can have long-term risks, and focus instead on crafting messaging that is more transparent about how, why and by whom decisions are made.
The authors:
is a research director in Public Health Institutions, Global Strategy Lab at York University, Canada. Cassola has received past funding from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
is full professor of Faculties of Social Sciences and Medicine; senior investigator, at the Global Strategy Lab at L’Université d’Ottawa/University of Ottawa. Fafard has received funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and Health Canada. He consults for the Institut national de santé publique du Québec.
