¡°Dr Google¡± is a bigger threat to evidence-based policymaking than the anti-science polemics of populist politicians, according to the incoming head of the International Science Council.

Paediatrician turned science diplomat Sir Peter Gluckman said that science faced a challenge from Donald Trump¡¯s questioning of the consensus on climate change, and former UK education secretary Michael Gove¡¯s pronouncement that Britons had grown tired of experts.

But Sir Peter said that such attitudes were symptoms of a broader problem spawned by the internet. ¡°Everybody now has access to information. Whether it¡¯s reliable or unreliable is beside the point,¡± he told Times Higher Education.

¡°That¡¯s led many to think they no longer need experts. There¡¯s a hubris [in] that people think ¡®Mr Google¡¯ or ¡®Mr Wikipedia¡¯ are enough. That¡¯s not the case. Data needs analysis and interpretation.¡±

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Sir Peter said that science needed to engage with climate change deniers and the ¡°anti-vax¡± movement. ¡°There¡¯s no point screaming at these people and saying they¡¯re idiots. We need to understand what leads people to particular positions, and recognise that science has a challenge here.¡±

Sir Peter added:?¡°It doesn¡¯t matter how much we plead to people to have a measles vaccine. The anti-vax movement continues to believe that there¡¯s no need to do so. It doesn¡¯t matter how much the evidence is robust around climate change; there will be people who for whatever reason don¡¯t want to accept climate change is a challenge that must be addressed. There are various reasons why that happens. We need to understand that. It¡¯s not just a matter of better science communication. That¡¯s a trivial way of putting it.¡±

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Sir Peter¡¯s nine-year spell as New Zealand¡¯s chief science adviser ended last year, shortly before he was named president-elect of the ISC. His selection as chief-in-waiting ¨C to be consummated in 2021, when inaugural president Daya Reddy¡¯s term concludes ¨C coincided with the global body¡¯s fusion from two separate bodies, the International Council of Scientific Unions and the International Social Science Council.

The merger ¡°brings the full range of knowledge disciplines into one forum¡± and will ¡°allow commonality of language to emerge¡±, Sir Peter said. It also marked a greater focus on the ¡°interplay¡± between science and policy.

¡°There needs to be a far more pragmatic way of dealing with issues where evidence is needed to make better decisions for the planet and its citizens. Scientific evidence is one of the inputs into a much more complex equation. Ultimately, at least in a liberal democracy, values such as public opinion, public priorities and electoral context come into play,¡± Sir Peter said.

Sir Peter said that governments would always do things that ¡°frankly are sometimes stupid. But my experience is [that] when you explain what science can do, acknowledge what science cannot do and recognise the many other domains in a policy community, most governments are more willing to have science at the table. That¡¯s what this is all about.¡±

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Spearheading the effort will be the International Network for Government Science Advice, which Sir Peter helped establish five years ago when he convened the world¡¯s first global meeting of high-level science advisers.

He said that he expected some of the group¡¯s current work to be presented to the United Nations this year, including attempts to give the Sustainable Development Goals more policy clout.

The ISC has also appointed Flavia Schlegel, a former assistant director general of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation, as its special envoy for science in global policy. ¡°It¡¯s not a matter of just turning up and knocking on the doors of international agencies,¡± Sir Peter said. ¡°We will have an ongoing interaction with them.¡±

Sir Peter said that science needed to recognise its limitations as well as its strengths. ¡°Science can explain complex systems. When there are many unknowns, we can reduce the level of uncertainty. We can say where it is desirable to get a different outcome and what options are likely to achieve it, and analyse the pluses and minuses of any action,¡± he said.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

¡°Then we leave it for the policy community to choose between the options. What we cannot do ¨C and what is the wrong thing to do ¨C is to say that because A causes B, therefore government must do C. That is where the hubris of science has been a problem.¡±

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com