It has been a common refrain among politicians during the pandemic that their decisions have been ¡°guided by the science¡±. But even if we take such claims at face value, how do we know they are not drawing on dubious sources? How do we know that their supposedly apolitical judgements are not being informed, for instance, by ideologically biased thinktanks, funded by undeclared vested interests or individuals with a passion for their own isolated views?

Even more insidious is what is ¡°hidden¡± in ostensibly scientific papers published in reputable journals. A recent case in point was that of coronavirus data supplied?to eminent researchers by a health data ¡°mining¡± company called Surgisphere. Papers based upon such data published in The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine led the World Health Organisation to halt trials into the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in dealing with the virus. Subsequent enquiries, primarily by The Guardian newspaper, led to and, indeed, the credentials and competence of the company and its founder to supply and interpret such data. Both papers have subsequently been retracted.

But why did the flaws in the data bypass the concerns of eminent researchers, esteemed journal editors, peer reviewers and even the WHO? And what other dubious sources have been missed as researchers and journals have rushed to publish their Covid-19 research? How many flawed health interventions might have resulted?

Questions such as these are being asked by a European Union-funded project led by the UK¡¯s Academy of Social Sciences. Since long before the pandemic, the ?project has been encouraging policymakers to only employ evidence that has been demonstrably generated from ethical research conducted with integrity by examining both the research itself and its source.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

If you keep the names of advisers and their sources secret (as was formerly the case, for instance, with the UK government¡¯s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage)), how can you assess the degree to which they may be influenced by vested interests? How can you conduct an adequately comprehensive peer review? How can you know which sources they have drawn upon and which they excluded or ignored?

Political decision makers should not be allowed to conduct their interpretations of ¡°the science¡± behind closed doors (as the Trump administration also appears to do). Most evidence in such a complex field as public health cannot be definitive; rather, what are on offer are option appraisals, taking into account precautionary principles and risk minimisation. If policymakers decide secretly, on the basis of undisclosed political concerns, it becomes all too easy to apportion the blame to ¡°the experts¡± if something goes wrong.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Transparency alone is no solution, however. For example, the UK prime minister¡¯s response to the recent Black Lives Matter protests was to establish yet another commission on racial inequality. What was wrong with the raft of previous commissions all offering sound policy recommendations? Why did they have no impact? Why has there not been even a pretence of acting on the evidence?

Worse, the adviser appointed to set up the new commission has a of doubting the existence of institutional racism and condemning BAME people¡¯s alleged ¡°culture of grievance¡±. Such an evident conflict of interest may result in a panel and terms of reference that fail to get to the heart of the issues.

The European Commission¡¯s interest in funding PRO-RES is a concern for impact. How much notice do policymakers actually take of well-funded, well-conducted and ethical research, given that even papers in top journals are rarely read by politicians or civil servants? In this era of emergent online ¡°citizen science¡±, the commission has now moved to embrace open access and open science, both with a view to encouraging transparency and to enhancing public understanding of science. It is important to acknowledge people¡¯s right and competence to investigate the effectiveness, for example, of public health procedures and to conduct their own assessment of the reasons behind variations in outcomes for communities and for individuals.

In return, there is an obligation upon scientists, science advisers and journalists to ensure clarity and openness in the debate. Public trust in and understanding of science is not enhanced by secrecy. Mutual trust among citizens and between citizens and the state is essential to a healthy functioning democracy.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Policy is influenced in variable ways, depending upon context and crisis, by lobbying agencies, thinktanks (of varying competence), data-gathering enterprises with a primarily commercial drive, and journalists and news sources. If their influence is to be minimised in future, then academic research must be genuinely independent, unbiased, robust and open to scrutiny ¨C creating a level of public understanding and trust that the politicians find impossible to skirt around.

The more transparent the science, the less likely are the public ¨C and the politicians ¨C to rely on fakery.

Ron Iphofen is an independent research consultant and leads the UK Academy of Social Sciences¡¯ team in the PRO-RES project.