Sage, Dominic Cummings and ‘following the science’

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/28/sage-dominic-cummings-and-following-the-science

Version 0 of 1.

Letters: Prof Peter Ayton explains why scientists on the advisory group may not offer dissenting views, while Nick Williams says the scientific evidence on coronavirus is provisional at best. Plus letters from Martin Lunt and Chris Mitton

Your editorial (The Guardian view on Dominic Cummings: is he able to give Sage advice?, 26 April) says Dominic Cummings’ presence on the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) will distort discussions because scientists, fearing that falling out of favour will result in sanctions, will tailor their contributions by not offering dissenting views.

However likely, self-serving timidity is not necessary for such distortions to result; the mere presence of Cummings, with a direct reporting line to the prime minister, removes all benefits of in-camera discussion. Consequently, Sage members, mindful of Cummings’ non-scientific and political judgment bypassing the chief scientific officer’s briefing, may avoid playing devil’s advocate, not because they fear losing a gong or funding, but because they fear that Cummings’ report of their discussions won’t reliably integrate Sir Patrick Vallance’s scientific caveats.

Your report (Attendees of Sage meetings worried by presence of Cummings, 26 April) quotes a Downing Street spokesperson saying: “It is entirely right that No 10 advisers attend to better understand the scientific debate and the decisions that need to be taken.” The government’s notion that reports from dilettante observers at Sage can improve on the chief scientific officer’s briefing to enhance government understanding and decision-making is not reassuring.Prof Peter AytonDepartment of psychology, City, University of London

• Anthony Costello makes excellent points on the government and science (The government’s secret science group has a shocking lack of expertise, 27 April). Hapless ministers appear on TV and respond to difficult questions by saying they rely on the science. But what science? Until confirmed by evidence, scientists disagree. We are still learning about the current coronavirus, hence the scientific evidence about it is provisional. It would appear that the government has chosen the evidence that suits its record and ideology, delivered by an advisory committee (Sage) chosen for the same reasons and monitored by Dominic Cummings. Or perhaps it’s just incompetence?Nick WilliamsAuchenblae, Aberdeenshire

• Your report (Scientists criticise UK government’s ‘following the science’ claim, 23 April) exposes as sophistry ministers’ claims that they are “following the science”. There is no such thing as “the” science; there are many scientific views, and some may be contradictory. It is the role of politicians to form a judgment based on all available information. I required my final-year students to read a 1979 article, The Demand for and Supply of Accounting Theories: The Market for Excuses, by Ross Watts and Jerold Zimmerman. The authors show how policymakers require justification for their actions and thus have a demand for research that supports what they want to do. Academics write articles and provide research from which policymakers can select in order to provide an excuse for their actions. My young students would not be fooled by the government rhetoric.Martin LuntEccleston, Lancashire

• “Attendees of Sage meetings worried by presence of Cummings” (Headline, 26 April). “Jim Hacker discovers even science can be open to manipulation – when the PM takes an interest” (Synopsis of Yes Minister, series two, episode four, 1981). Plus ça change…Chris MittonSutton Coldfield, West Midlands

• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com

• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters