Cookies on this website

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Accept all cookies' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. If you click 'Reject all non-essential cookies' only necessary cookies providing core functionality such as security, network management, and accessibility will be enabled. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

Background: Responses to COVID-19 have invested heavily in science. How this science was used is therefore important. Our work extends existing knowledge on the use of science in the pandemic by capturing scientific advisers’ experiences in real time.Aims and objectives: Our aim was to present generalisable messages on key qualifications or difficulties involved in speaking of ‘following the science’.Methods: Ninety-three interviews with UK scientific advisors and government officials captured their activities and perceptions during the pandemic in real time. We also examined Parliamentary Select Committee transcripts and government documents. This material was analysed for thematic content.Findings and discussion: (1) Many scientists sought guidance from policymakers about their goals, yet the COVID-19 response demonstrated the absence of a clear steer, and a tendency to change course quickly; (2) many scientists did not want to offer policy advice, but rather to provide evidence; and (3) a range of knowledge informed the UK’s pandemic response: we examine which kinds were privileged, and demonstrate the absence of clarity on how government synthesised the different forms of evidence being used.Conclusions: Understanding the reasons for a lack of clarity about policy goals would help us better understand the use of science in policy. Realisation that policy goals sometimes alter rapidly would help us better understand the logistics of scientific advice. Many scientists want their evidence to inform policy rather than determine the options selected. Since the process by which evidence leads to decisions is obscure, policy cannot be said to be evidence-based.<br />Key messages<br /><ul><li>Scientific advisors need to know policy goals, but these can be obscure and changeable.</li><br /><li>Many scientists want their evidence to inform policy rather than determine the policy selected.</li><br /><li>Evidence feeds into decisions in obscure ways, so policy cannot be said to be evidence-based.</li><br /><li>‘Evidence-informed’ policy is a more feasible aim than ‘evidence-based’ policy.</li></ul>

Original publication




Journal article


Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice


Bristol University Press

Publication Date