糖心Vlog

Harry Collins: science is a pillar of democracy

Responses to the coronavirus touch on the deepest issues of the kind of society we want and need, says distinguished research professor

Published on
May 31, 2020
Last updated
June 10, 2020
A laboratory technician wearing full PPE (personal protective equipment) works at a new Lighthouse Lab facility dedicated to testing for the novel coronavirus COVID-19, at Queen Elizabeth University Hospital in Glasgow on April 22, 2020.
Source: Getty
Clear-eyed: science is valuable because 鈥榓s an institution [it] tends to produce people with integrity鈥

For Harry Collins, the coronavirus crisis raises crucial questions about the future of science 鈥 and so the future of democracy.

Distinguished research professor in Cardiff University鈥檚 School of Social Sciences, Collins was a pioneer in what he calls 鈥淲ave Two science studies鈥, which explores how science is a deeply social, and so fallibly human, activity. More recently, he has been concerned with how one can reconcile this critical perspective with a firm but realistic commitment to the value of science.

Furthermore, for more than four decades, Professor Collins has been carrying out sociological research among the scientists who erroneously believed they had detected gravitational waves in 1972; he was still there for . Despite 鈥渁聽lot of pressures on science to lose its integrity鈥, such as 鈥渄emands it should contribute to the economy鈥, he said, he still believed that 鈥渟cience as an institution tends to produce people with integrity鈥. That made it 鈥渢he least worst way鈥 of gaining insights into the world 鈥渂ecause the people involved are doing their very best to get the correct solution without being driven by hidden interests鈥ven in circumstances where science can鈥檛 reach 鈥榯he truth鈥, because it鈥檚 too complicated, you still want to go to those people because they are the best bet.鈥

Yet beyond the utility of its insights, Professor Collins also saw science as 鈥渁聽desperately important institution鈥 because it offered 鈥渁n聽object lesson against the political argument that the only right way of making decisions is through the market鈥 and represented 鈥渙ne of the checks and balances you need in a democratic society鈥.

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

So what does this mean in the current situation, when scientists have been given unprecedented public prominence and most governments claim to be deferring to them?

Professor Collins has already posted titled 鈥淐an Covid save science?鈥 and was happy to share further thoughts with 糖心Vlog.

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

鈥淚 would rather have politicians say they are following the science than not following the science,鈥 he explained, 鈥渂ecause it gives science a higher profile and more legitimacy, which is what I聽want for聽it.鈥 Nonetheless, he would prefer to hear them saying, 鈥溾榃e鈥檙e taking into account the science鈥, rather than following it, because it鈥檚 not clear what 鈥榝ollowing it鈥 means when there鈥檚 scientific disagreement鈥.

This is more than a trivial point. There has always been deep disagreement among economists, so it made little sense for Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s to claim that expert advice clearly pointed to particular policies. Today, as Professor Collins saw it, predictive epidemiology seemed to be just as divided, so governments had to 鈥渢ake a聽lot of responsibility for what they do, because there isn鈥檛 the kind of consensus we have about whether gravitational waves have been discovered in the case of where Covid is going鈥.

Although Professor Collins regarded the British government鈥檚 pandemic response as 鈥渃ompletely inexcusable鈥, arguing that it relied on secrecy and spin, he suspected that politicians 鈥are trying to take notice of the science鈥 while also (or instead) 鈥渓ooking to use scientists as scapegoats if things go wrong鈥.

It was here that he foresaw a huge possible danger. 鈥淚f the government decide they need scientists as scapegoats, you can see the Daily Mail and other such newspapers saying: 鈥楽cience has let us down. We used to think science was perfect, but now we see these people are fallible, adulterers and so on. We can鈥檛 trust it any more.鈥 And the public might end up with that view, which would be very dangerous indeed.鈥

糖心Vlog

ADVERTISEMENT

But if the situation in the UK was worrying, what we are witnessing in the US was far worse.

鈥淚f Trump gets re-elected in the autumn, that would be a disaster for science,鈥 said Professor Collins. 鈥淗e has displayed a total lack of regard for any kind of reasonable decision-making or science. If he gets re-elected, that means that there鈥檚 no safeguard in democracy for science and reasonable decision-making.鈥

matthew.reisz@timeshighereducation.com

POSTSCRIPT:

Print headline:聽Science as an institution is a vital pillar of democracy

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Please
or
to read this article.

Related articles

Computers and lasers are compelling proof that researchers' flights of fancy can pay off, but policymakers prefer to fund work with obvious economic merits. Matthew Reisz asks whether the sky should be the limit

Related universities

Reader's comments (1)

This reaches into the fundamental levels of what you think a government is actually FOR and how it ought to operate in any given situation. If you regard them as being hired to adminster the country on behalf of citizens and to provide support as required, then they ought to be getting the best possible guidance from appropriate experts whatever the situation. After all, most politicians are not experts in anything - they've dedicated their professional lives to getting into power (or, at the lowest end, mastering the arts of self-interest, secrecy and spin), so they need to find out what is required as a response to any given situation from those who do know about it... and then take that into account when making their own recommendations. However, as seen by the current debate on children returning to primary schools in England, there is conficting advice from different groups of experts to be taken into consideration. Educationalists will say that it's better for children to be in school, psychologists are likely to argue that school attendance is better for their mental health. Epidimologists are likely to be more cautious about whether it is safe to do so right now or whether we should be more cautions. Economists want the childcare aspects of school to be restored so that parents can return to work and get the economy moving. It all goes to show why we need a far higher quality of individual going into the public service that politics should be, people able to balance these up as they put the overall 'general good of citizens' at the centre as they put forward recommendations as to how the nation should act.

Sponsored

Featured jobs

See all jobs
ADVERTISEMENT