The relationship between Science and politics: Did a pandemic change anything?

COVID-19 will be talked about for years to come. Students will answer exam questions about the pandemic; being asked to compare and contrast each countries response. And in 10 years I expect to see dozens of articles with similar titles: “Coronavirus a decade later – what went wrong?” Trying to piece together the larger narrative of the car crash that has been 2020 is for the historians of future generations. Right now we, as both individuals and a society, need to examine how we have reacted in the face of this crisis. As mentioned in a previous blog this pandemic has fuelled discussions about the current state of society and the need for significant change. One of these topics has been the relationship between politics and science, particularly politician’s rhetoric about science. This was an especially important debate early in the pandemic when we knew very little about the virus and government advice was questionable at best.
Politicians have a habit of only mention science on two occasions: when a noteworthy scientific event occurs (for example a global pandemic) or when they need evidence to justify a decision they were going to make anyway. During the coronavirus pandemic some politicians have claimed they have been following scientific evidence (U.K, U.S) while their actions suggest otherwise. On the opposite end of the scale other politicians didn’t just talk about the best evidence they actually acted on it and they are the ones who right now are benefiting from that course of action (New Zealand).
A crisis of this scale brings out the best and worst in people. Early in the pandemic many people decided to hoard supplies (seriously though, who needs that much toilet paper), ignored the rules and, in extreme cases, were intentionally vindictive. These events were made worse by politicians who, in the U.K at least, issued confusing advice which only increased public anger and frustration. When the government continued to say they were following the science these feelings were magnified and, as a scientist, made disappointing with humanity. This situation highlighted politician’s tenuous and generally poor relationship with science and the scientific process. As the dust begins to settle (and a second waves are appearing on the horizon) we need to examine this relationship and decide if, as we move forward, we want this relationship to stay the same, get better or has this whole scenario just made it worse?*

*Disclaimer: This is not a critical analysis of the role of science in politics, this is just one scientists discussion and point of view, with a focus on U.K politics. For a more in-depth analysis I suggest you look elsewhere.

Using science to shape the public mood
July 20th 1969 - engineers are hunched over computers, families are gathered in front of their TV and the world holds its breath as Neil Armstrong takes the first steps on the moon. This was seen by more than 600 million people across the planet and was an event the public had waited nearly a decade to watch. At the start of the 1960’s president JFK threw down a gauntlet and announced that within the decade Americans would put a human on the moon. He persuaded the general public that not only could it be done, it would be done. More importantly he’d put a time limit on; because the pressure of a publicly announced deadline would hold him to account (even if he would no longer be in office by the time the deadline rolled around). When launch day came the public were ready to watch what would become one of the biggest achievements in human history. JFK, and the people at NASA who actually made it happen, managed to get the public hooked on space travel. They set a goal and sold it to the public and the public (mostly) supported them.
Skip ahead 50 years and the public mood and interest in science and engineering has diminished drastically. We want self-driving cars and virtual reality, but we want them because it helps us live a life of comfort and convenience, and because we can brag about owning them on social media. Ignoring our obsession with consumerism look at the disaster that is climate change. Like the moon landings they could be something that the public gets behind, a goal we all strive towards as a species. There are growing communities who are dedicated to correcting the damage we have done to this planet and I know hundreds of scientists (if not thousands) who are working on technology to make our world more sustainable. But, sadly, for some people money comes above all else. Look at Donald Trump who, in the same position as JFK, has used his political sway to withdraw from the Paris agreement, relax pollution restrictions and has done little to acknowledge that climate change even exists. Instead of rallying the public towards one goal he sows discord to the point that a horrifying number of people believe climate change is a hoax (thankfully they remain in the minority, for now).
Science can help create a cause and if used wisely can help swing the public mood to support that cause. The COVID-19 pandemic could have been a chance to use the public mood to save lives. As mentioned some countries used that opportunity while others wasted it. During the initial lockdown U.K politicians tried to create a sense of “working together”, but as time has gone on the government has eased rules which blatantly favour the economy over public health. The U.K government has shown their hand and revealed where their priorities lie. Rather than use science to remind people to wear masks properly (put it over your damn nose!) and follow healthcare guidance they are instead using it to convince people to return to normal. They are choosing to forget the science so they can tell you what they really care about: spending over safety.

What happens when politicians forget science?
Science is not something you can dip in and out of. It’s not a season of your favourite TV show. It’s not a magazine you subscribe to and then forget about. It’s not fu*king tapas. You can’t pick and choose which parts of science you listen to and which you ignore. This is a fact that some politicians forget. Science is two things – the body of knowledge that we call “science” and the method by which we study the world around us (which then lets us accurately acquire that body knowledge). Unfortunately the politicians who choose to forget this are the ones who choose to refer to science only when they think it is absolutely necessary. Like during a global pandemic. When this happens they wheel out the science, the statistics and the pretty graphs; focusing on the material that supports their agenda. Then once it’s no longer needed the science is discarded and forgotten about until the next crisis or big scientific event. This relationship is something we have always known but it has never been a problem - until now. COVID-19 has highlighted politicians fleeting relationship with science; the pandemic has gone on longer than they could have expected.
In the first few weeks of the U.K lockdown Prime Minister Boris Johnson did not act as though he was being “led by the science.” His decisions included a late lockdown, little to no restrictions on travel and letting senior staff flagrantly breaking the rules (yes Dom, we still remember). Now almost 5 full months after lockdown Boris isn’t even making claims about following science – instead he’s encouraging us to go to the pub for a pint. This problem isn’t isolated to the U.K; in the U.S a (hilarious) interview with Donald Trump shows that he can’t comprehend recent data and probably hasn’t had a grasp of the science from day 1. Compare these attitudes to other leaders; go back and watch Angela Merkel (who earned a doctorate in quantum chemistry) do a brilliant job of explaining the importance of social distancing. Then go and look at anything Jacinda Ardern has done during the pandemic (at this point she has done more to convince people that New Zealand is the best place to live than Peter Jackson ever did).
When politicians choose to ignore what scientists are saying they are betraying the public – the people they are supposed to help protect and care for. When politicians listen to scientists, and in some cases are scientists themselves, they can make informed decisions and trust the scientific method to give them reliable information. When the science is telling you not to ease restrictions and maintain social distancing it is irresponsible to act otherwise. This is why we see people choosing not to wearing masks, why when I go to the park I see groups of a dozen people partying, and why the data is not looking promising for a second peak.

Conclusion
The relationship between science and politics has always been a concern but it has taken a global pandemic to become a problem. Career politicians have always chosen to use science as either a scapegoat or an excuse. This approach worked when the risks were low and the consequences less severe. But in this pandemic hundreds if not thousands of lives are at risk based on the decisions politicians make. Despite the fact that some countries are suffering from the repercussions of this approach politicians are still ignoring science for their own political agenda. Right now it appears that COVID-19 has had little impact on the relationship between politics and science; for them science will always be better when you can choose what to listen too. But eventually this attitude will have consequences. When you are in the lab and results don’t go the way you want you might be tempted to cherry pick the best results that suit your hypothesis. Any scientist knows this is not just wrong, but it will eventually cause problems later. The same principle applies during the pandemic - you can’t pick and choose which parts of science work for you; eventually it will come at a cost. I just hope we realise this before it’s too late.