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