This article was written by Sir Geoff Mulgan, a professor at University College London, who has previously worked in city and national governments and in the European Commission.

  • The problem: Ever more of the work of government depends on science; but the relationship between science and politics is often fraught and problematic.
  • Why it matters: The stakes are very high — from pandemics and AI to climate change and mental health.
  • The solution: New skills for politicians and officials; new institutions to navigate the difficult choices; and new ways of engaging the public in conversations about how best to shape fields like AI, quantum or synthetic biology.

A remarkable proportion of the challenges that have hit governments in recent years have a common feature. Whether it’s climate change or pandemics, AI or mental health, all involve a lot of science.

A few decades ago, science and science advice was quite marginal to the work of governments, confined to relatively few issues such as nuclear power or the safety of mobile phone masts. Now, science has become ever more central. But how exactly should governments respond? Can they just ‘follow the science’? And how should they cope if different sciences give different steers?

💬 Let the author know what you think about the role of science in politics by leaving a comment below

At the moment, the relationship between science and politics is often fraught, involving misinformation, mutual criticism and misunderstanding and healthy collaboration. Scientists often feel that the politicians don’t understand the science, while politicians feel that scientists simply don’t grasp the pressures on governments. Anti-science movements are gaining ground and Hollywood often portrays scientists as villains rather than heroes.

Sometimes, there is outright hostility. When Covid-19 arrived, Donald Trump promised ’it’s one person coming in from China and we have it under control. It’s going to be just fine’ before going on to recommend detergents. Jair Bolsonaro thought it was all fake news while the President of Tanzania recommended lemon and ginger as a cure. Many leaders remain sceptical of climate science.

But even in the governments that have taken a more rational view, the relationship of science to politics has been tricky. In the US, Anthony Fauci struggled to explain why the US had funded risky research in Wuhan which aimed to make viruses more, not less, dangerous. In Britain, Prime Minister Boris Johnson promised to follow the science but commented that “Covid is nature’s way of dealing with old people'' (prompting his then top civil servant, Sir Mark Sedwill, to describe Johson’s administration as “brutal and useless.”) So, how could governments do better?

First, they need to recognise that since ever more political decisions require a grasp of science, the decision-makers need to be trained. Yet politicians are given almost no professional training. They are thrown into difficult jobs with only the flimsiest grasp of what it means to say that ‘research shows x’, or how to balance conflicting scientific claims. Civil servants may be well trained in management and often have a good grasp of economics and law. But they too sometimes struggle to grasp science, the exponential patterns of pandemics, or the uncertainties of fields like quantum computing and synthetic biology. No wonder so many flounder. At a minimum, civil service colleges, universities and online providers need to prepare them far more thoroughly for the roles they now have, helping them to ask the right questions.

Second, scientists too need better training to help them communicate better, and to grasp that scientific knowledge doesn’t always trump other kinds of knowledge. Faced with an issue like climate change governments need to mobilise many different forms of knowledge and then to synthesise them: the science on its own is never enough to guide decisions. This became obvious during the pandemic as science on its own couldn’t provide ways to trade-off physical and mental health, the needs of young people and the elderly. This has to be where politics comes in.

Third, we will increasingly need hybrid structures and people able to think in both scientific, political and bureaucratic terms simultaneously. Decisions can neither be purely political or purely scientific. Instead, they need to be both. Yet most countries lack institutions with the power and remit to do this. This became very obvious around AI over the last 18 months as governments around the world panicked in response to ChatGPT and are only now creating institutions with the power and capacity to engage the public in difficult decisions about rules and regulations. There are a few exceptions, such as the UK’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which not only regulates experiments and uses in fields like cloning and IVF, but also has a remit to involve the public. Yet for crucial technologies like the Internet and AI, there was nothing.

Fourth, we need new ways to engage the public in a two-way conversation. There are many examples and many methods — from Denmark’s consensus conferences to Citizens Assemblies — but they remain rare. Yet if the public aren’t involved in shaping the directions and priorities of science, we shouldn’t be surprised if they are sceptical of the results. The days when the public would just watch on with passive gratitude are gone.

Finally, we need new institutions at a global level. When the UN was created money was all-important, and so we got a World Bank, an IMF and many funds. Yet there are no global institutions dedicated to knowledge and data, or to looking at science in the round, even though there is a huge mismatch between the global goals — the SDGs — and where science and technology effort is directed. We will increasingly need global institutions — drawing on existing examples like the WHO and the IPCC — that can help the world deliberate and decide, and direct brainpower to the tasks that matter most.

In short, we need:

  • Better skills and understanding — both for civil servants and politicians, with enough preparation at least to ask the right questions.
  • New institutions — hybrid bodies including scientists, politicians and officials that can debate and decide on the many issues coming down the track both at national and global level.
  • More honest and serious engagement with the public on the facts and the dilemmas, and a genuine conversation which accepts that much will remain uncertain.

Should LLMs be licensed or regulated? Are new rules needed for biosafety in high risk experiments? How should the world navigate the potential advent of new quantum computing capabilities that could undermine online security? There are no easy answers to these and dozens of similar questions. But what should not be in doubt is that any answers will have to be political and bureaucratic as well as scientific.

‘When Science Meets Power’ is published by Polity Press this winter.

Done reading? Make sure to share your own thoughts on ways to mobilise knowledge for better decision making by leaving a comment below ⬇️

(Image credit: Unsplash)