Government officials casting shadows over scientists at a COVID-19 advisory board meeting.

Scapegoat Science: How Governments Used COVID-19 Advisory Boards to Dodge Blame

Jordan Keane in Politics & Policy July 2025 • 4 min read.

"Did scientific advisory boards during the pandemic serve as genuine guides, or were they strategic tools for governments seeking to avoid accountability?"

The COVID-19 pandemic thrust science into the spotlight, with governments worldwide relying on expert advice to navigate unprecedented challenges. Yet, a closer look reveals a curious trend: many governments opted to create new, ad hoc scientific advisory bodies (ahSABs) instead of utilizing existing public health infrastructure. This raises a critical question: Were these ahSABs genuinely intended to guide policy, or did they serve a more strategic purpose?

New research suggests a potentially unsettling answer. According to a study encompassing the US, UK, Sweden, Italy, Poland, and Uganda, these ad hoc advisory bodies may have functioned as 'bespoke scapegoats,' shielding governments from blame when unpopular policies were enacted or when outcomes fell short of expectations. The research delves into the composition, function, and impact of these boards, revealing a pattern of strategic blame-shifting.

This article examines the findings of this revealing research, exploring how governments may have used scientific advisory boards to manage public perception and avoid accountability during a time of crisis. We'll explore the characteristics that made these boards attractive targets for blame, the implications for public trust, and the potential reforms needed to ensure scientific advice truly serves the public interest.

Why Create a Scapegoat? The Dilemma of Governing During Crisis

Government officials casting shadows over scientists at a COVID-19 advisory board meeting.

When faced with large-scale, prolonged crises, governments face a significant dilemma. Citizens expect decisive action, but acting in the face of uncertainty carries inherent risks. If policies fail or prove unpopular, governments risk public backlash. In these situations, experts can provide a convenient 'escape hatch.' By delegating responsibility to scientific advisors, governments can deflect blame, claiming they were simply following the best available advice.

However, this strategy isn't foolproof. Delegating authority to experts limits a government's policy discretion, and experts themselves can become targets of criticism. Moreover, experts can 'bite back,' publicly disagreeing with government policies and undermining the intended blame-shifting effect. This is where the ad hoc scientific advisory board comes in.

Compact and Identifiable: ahSABs are typically small, well-defined groups, making them easy to recognize and hold accountable.
Created at Will: Unlike established institutions, ahSABs can be formed and disbanded as needed, allowing governments to replace them with more compliant bodies if necessary.
Controlled Mandate and Membership: Governments can carefully select members and define the scope of an ahSAB, ensuring its advice aligns with pre-determined policy goals.
External Authority: ahSABs can be presented as independent authorities, lending legitimacy to government actions, even if the advice is strategically crafted.

By creating these bodies, governments can restore policy discretion while minimizing the risk of blame bouncing back. The current literature on blame avoidance largely focuses on how governments deflect blame to existing political actors or permanently embedded experts. However, the strategic construction of scapegoats offers a powerful alternative.

Policy Implications: Reforming Scientific Advice

The research findings carry significant policy implications for the design and use of scientific advisory boards. To mitigate the risk of ahSABs being used for blame-shifting, the study authors suggest greater democratic scrutiny of their appointment, mandate, and composition. Explicit regulations or norms are needed to ensure objectivity and prevent governments from using these bodies to merely rubber-stamp pre-determined policies.

About this Article -

This article was crafted using a human-AI hybrid and collaborative approach. AI assisted our team with initial drafting, research insights, identifying key questions, and image generation. Our human editors guided topic selection, defined the angle, structured the content, ensured factual accuracy and relevance, refined the tone, and conducted thorough editing to deliver helpful, high-quality information.See our About page for more information.

This article is based on research published under:

DOI-LINK: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2310.04312,

Title: Bespoke Scapegoats: Scientific Advisory Bodies And Blame Avoidance In The Covid-19 Pandemic And Beyond

Subject: econ.gn q-fin.ec

Authors: Roger Koppl, Kira Pronin, Nick Cowen, Marta Podemska-Mikluch, Pablo Paniagua Prieto

Published: 06-10-2023

Everything You Need To Know

Why did governments create ad hoc scientific advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic instead of relying on existing public health infrastructure?

Governments, facing pressure to act decisively during the COVID-19 pandemic, created ad hoc scientific advisory boards (ahSABs) as a way to manage potential blame. Unlike established institutions, these ahSABs could be formed and disbanded as needed, with carefully selected members and mandates. This allowed governments to deflect responsibility for unpopular or unsuccessful policies, claiming they were simply following expert advice. The creation of ahSABs provided governments with more policy discretion while minimizing the risk of public backlash.

What characteristics of ad hoc scientific advisory boards made them attractive for governments seeking to avoid blame?

Several characteristics made ad hoc scientific advisory boards (ahSABs) attractive for governments seeking to avoid blame. Firstly, their compact and identifiable nature made them easy to recognize and hold accountable, diverting criticism from the government itself. Secondly, ahSABs could be created and disbanded at will, allowing governments to replace them with more compliant bodies if necessary. Thirdly, governments could control the mandate and membership of ahSABs, ensuring their advice aligned with pre-determined policy goals. Finally, ahSABs could be presented as independent authorities, lending legitimacy to government actions, even if the advice was strategically crafted.

In what specific ways could governments control the advice given by ad hoc scientific advisory boards?

Governments exerted control over the advice provided by ad hoc scientific advisory boards (ahSABs) through several key mechanisms. They carefully selected the members of the boards, ensuring that appointees were likely to offer advice aligned with the government's pre-existing policy preferences. Additionally, governments defined the scope and mandate of the ahSABs, limiting the range of issues they could address and the types of recommendations they could make. By controlling membership and mandate, governments could effectively steer the advice provided by ahSABs towards pre-determined policy goals, reinforcing the government's desired course of action.

What are the potential consequences of governments using scientific advisory boards to deflect blame?

The practice of governments using scientific advisory boards, especially ad hoc scientific advisory boards (ahSABs), to deflect blame can have serious consequences. It can erode public trust in both the government and the scientific community, as it suggests that scientific advice is being manipulated for political purposes. This can lead to a decline in public compliance with important policies, such as public health measures. Furthermore, it can undermine the integrity of the scientific advisory process, making it more difficult to attract qualified experts and ensure that advice is based on objective evidence rather than political considerations. The long-term impact is a weakening of the relationship between science and policymaking, which is essential for effective governance.

What reforms are needed to prevent governments from using scientific advisory boards for blame-shifting?

To prevent the misuse of scientific advisory boards, particularly ad hoc scientific advisory boards (ahSABs), for blame-shifting, several reforms are necessary. There should be greater democratic scrutiny of the appointment process, mandate, and composition of these boards to ensure transparency and accountability. Explicit regulations or norms are needed to guarantee objectivity and prevent governments from using these bodies to merely rubber-stamp pre-determined policies. Additionally, fostering a culture of open dialogue and dissent within the boards can help to prevent groupthink and ensure that diverse perspectives are considered. Strengthening the independence and resources of established scientific institutions can also reduce the need for governments to create ahSABs, promoting reliance on more objective and established sources of expertise.