WHEN politicians seek to use science as a facade of authority, scientists need to watch out for the backlash.

As the government has plunged Britain into the crisis of being among the worst-hit countries in the world during the Covid-19 pandemic, its members have repeated the mantra again and again that they are being “led by science.” 

After the much feted turn away from experts, this change in the language of authority has been remarked upon as a change in public mood caused by the unprecedented crisis.

But will science and its practitioners survive this encounter with the catastrophically inept Tory government?

Professor Christina Boswell, a political theorist at the University of Edinburgh, summarises the use of scientists by government as a mixture of three functions: to solve a technical challenge using theory and evidence; to confer legitimacy on political decisions; and to provide a scapegoat if the policy fails.

It seems like a good idea to turn to science to solve technical problems. Scientific research as an academic industry has been extremely successful for the past century. It’s seen an explosion in funding and in the status and size of science departments within universities.

Much of this funding is justified by an appeal to the applicability of science to real-world problems, whether currently foreseen or yet to be discovered.

“Science” in this context means “progress.” It is the applicability to technical problems that has earned science its current status and investment in research.

As working scientists, we know well that the fusion of scientific research and applicability changes the nature of science itself. In order to attract funding, research programmes must make the case for the current or future impact of the research they intend to carry out.

This has benefits: whether the applications are realised or not, it is a good thing for  scientists and funders to think about their responsibilities and their context within the society that pays for the research. However, many scientists complain that the nature of unforeseen benefits through discovery, by definition, cannot be foreseen. More worrying is a destruction in the honesty of science, as scientists are required to inflate their claims on applicability to get funded.

Moreover, the burden of potential application being shifted to scientists tends to obscure the fact that the applicability of science is a very different question. The structure of society and its priorities are complex, deeply political questions. Whether the application of any particular science is a good idea or not should be addressed by citizens and their elected representatives.   

The temptation to step into the role of public expert is clearly deeply felt by many scientists. Certainly, there’s nothing wrong with transferring from being a scientist to being a highly numerate political adviser, or even an elected politician.

But a decision doesn’t become scientific just because it is made by a scientist. 

This is where the second role of science becomes dangerous: science as a stamp of authority is another terrible temptation for scientists.

Science has always been plagued by the conflation of “scientific evidence” and “truth” more generally. Scientific training, practice and discourse promotes radical scepticism. But the technical wizardry that science uses to impress its importance on the world means that it is co-opted by those who want “scientific” to mean “true,” and vice versa — a flattering accolade that scientists are often too willing to accept.

The use of science both to lead and as a stamp of legitimacy is built on imagined foundations. The edifice can easily come crashing down in the third use of science: as a scapegoat for vilification.

If the ultimate virtue in science were to be right, then the ultimate failure would be to be wrong. That’s a terrible misconception, when science is based on continually overturning established ideas. The cartoonish use of the “scientific authority” figure was continued in a long and unedifying tradition with the tabloid splash about the “government scientist” and his “married lover” last month.

The story of a scientist coming a cropper at the hands of the media is made all the more entertaining by the satisfaction of seeing that beneath the cool-headed “scientific” exterior, scientists are human too. But the disposability of people in the political blame game has tragic consequences. We must remember scientists such as David Kelly, who died 17 years ago as the result of involvement with the legitimacy-seeking Labour government.

It might seem that we are making an argument that scientists should stick to their jobs as mere technicians of evidence. But that’s not quite right either. Science is, as we hope to highlight in our columns, a deeply political subject. The questions that scientists ask are formed by their experiences, worldviews, cultures and what the people who pay for science want them to care about.

Even ignoring those scientists who merely do PR for big business, the work of science is controlled by those who can afford to pay for it. The precise nature of the questions can be tweaked by the scientists, and will be judged by the societal codes they’re embedded in.

Currently, scientists from across a huge range of disciplines are turning their work over to attacking the problems of Covid-19 from all angles. The feat of co-ordinated scientific research is now in motion worldwide in the scramble to find a vaccine — many scientists working extra hours, many on fixed-term contracts. The concerted effort is only possible because of the skills and the equipment carefully developed over years of research into other work. It will take further scientific skill to understand and synthesise these perspectives.  

However, even if scientists develop a vaccine, we will not be led out of this crisis by science. Covid-19 has laid bare the inequalities at the heart of our society. Fixing these is not a scientific question. We must not allow the government to use science as a justification for its success and an excuse for its failures.

As some scientific advisers such as Professor David Spiegelhalter speak out against the “number theatre” that Johnson’s government wants to use as a stand-in for clear-headed policy, we should listen.