Marres Noortje, Valderrama Barragán Matías
University of Warwick, Coventry, UK.
Soc Stud Sci. 2025 Aug;55(4):512-541. doi: 10.1177/03063127241309071. Epub 2025 Jan 10.
This article presents a situational analysis of the expert advice offered by Independent SAGE, a group of scientists that formed in May 2020 in the UK to provide advice on the Covid response. Based on interviews with the group's members and partners, we argue that through its interventions Indie SAGE demonstrated an important alternative approach to linking science and politics in a time of emergency. They showed that the only way to ensure that policy and decision-making on Covid-19 was grounded in knowledge was by making expert advice public. Indie SAGE's decision to 'go public' was a response to the political situation in the UK, one in which scientific advice, in particular public health expertise, was being ignored, sidelined and contested as such. We identify four rationales for making expert advice public: openness, calling out, translation, and responsive engagement. We describe associated modes of intervention that Indie SAGE adopted in relation to different critical situations of Covid-19. Distinctive about their advice, we argue, is its prioritization of . Much of it was explicitly oriented towards addressing practical and existential challenges experienced by particular social groups, professions and everyday publics. We argue that this way of making science public in an 'ontological' register acquires critical importance in a political situation like the UK Covid response, which was marked not just by disagreements about science but growing contestation of science as such. In this respect, our study holds a wider lesson for the understanding of the role of evidence in public politics. To advocate for evidence-based governance, as Indie SAGE did, is not necessarily to endorse a post-political vision of government. When science is contested in a time of emergency, making evidence public becomes a key means for responding to the demands of situations. It is not only pragmatic but a critical accomplishment.
本文对独立科学咨询小组(Independent SAGE)提供的专家建议进行了情境分析。该小组于2020年5月在英国成立,旨在为应对新冠疫情提供建议。通过对该小组成员及合作伙伴的访谈,我们认为,在紧急情况下,独立科学咨询小组通过其干预措施展示了一种将科学与政治联系起来的重要替代方法。他们表明,确保关于新冠疫情的政策和决策以知识为基础的唯一途径是公开专家建议。独立科学咨询小组“走向公众”的决定是对英国政治局势的回应,在这种局势下,科学建议,尤其是公共卫生专业知识,正被忽视、边缘化且受到质疑。我们确定了公开专家建议的四个理由:开放性、揭露、转化和回应性参与。我们描述了独立科学咨询小组针对新冠疫情不同关键情况所采取的相关干预模式。我们认为,他们建议的独特之处在于其对……的优先考虑。其中许多建议明确旨在应对特定社会群体、职业和普通民众所面临的实际和生存挑战。我们认为,在英国应对新冠疫情这样的政治局势中,以“本体论”方式公开科学具有至关重要的意义,这种局势不仅以对科学的分歧为特征,而且对科学本身的争议也日益增加。在这方面,我们的研究为理解证据在公共政治中的作用提供了更广泛的经验教训。像独立科学咨询小组那样倡导循证治理,不一定意味着赞同后政治的政府愿景。在紧急情况下,当科学受到质疑时,公开证据成为应对形势需求的关键手段。这不仅务实,而且是一项关键成就。