The Science, the Politics and the Media of the Coronavirus Pandemic
There is a fascinating thought in Philosophy of the Social Sciences that is by no means new. The thought is on the ontology of the social; on the nature of social events. The question is quite simply: how do social events relate with the individuals of the societies that bring them about? More specifically, how can we speak of cultural movements or political trends that somehow transcend individuals? Consider the statement “the opposition party does not find the government’s response to climate change sufficient.” The broad idea of “opposing the government” is attributed to “the party,” assuming (so it seems) that all opposition party members share the view. This, of course, seems unreasonable, partly because political parties can have dissenting views amongst their ranks, partly because it can be argued that having dissenting views amongst a party’s ranks actually improves their decision-making processes. Hence, the question: how can we speak of ideas that somehow transcend individuals? The question I wish to touch on in this article refers, more specifically, to recent political events in the UK. What I wish to ask is: how can policy makers respond to “the public’s concerns” as it manages the coronavirus pandemic? I will analyse this question by considering three important roles: that of science, government, and the media.
The Science
The first aspect concerning the government’s response concerns the role of scientists. Simplifying massively (I could not possibly do justice to the vast literature on Philosophy of Science), we can take scientific inquiry to be that which seeks some “objective truth.” Setting aside any discussion of what objectivity and truth are, I wish to emphasise the idea that the final output of rigorous scientific inquiry, which is a highly specialised task, is the most accurate version of reality possible, not absolute truth. To this effect, the role of scientists proves to be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, this understanding of science means respecting the expertise and ability of scientists — their work must go unperturbed to provide the most accurate accounts. On the other hand, scientists are human too, and, as such, prone to making mistakes. I’ll take on each of these aspects in turn.
That science must go unperturbed deserves much more unpacking than this paragraph will carry out. The key aspect I wish to mention is how “the most accurate information” provided by the scientist cannot exist or be determined as if in a vacuum. All analysis and advice provided by the scientific community is provided for a purpose and was developed through some lens, some series of values and beliefs. In this sense, scientists are not only aware that their work will have sociopolitical ramifications, but may have strong reason to work alongside policy makers to determine the best way for them to communicate their scientific advice. This may be to cover their own backs and protect their own image as truth-seekers, but also to guide their own investigations.
That scientists are prone to making mistakes is not particular to them: we all are. The importance of scientific communities working as communities lies in their ability to detect mistakes and improve the accuracy of research outcomes (consider the process of peer reviewing). The idea here is that scientific inquiry results in some more or less accurate truth through processes involving both consensus and dissent. Only in taking diverse standpoints seriously can scientific communities provide the most accurate responses to social challenges. I wish to elaborate on this thought on diversity given the complexity of the current global pandemic.
The diversity I am referring to is two-fold: scientific and social (although any such separation is controversial, I will elaborate the two and hope the distinction is intuitive). By scientific diversity, I mean diversity in scientific inquiry; more precisely, this is an acknowledgement of the (and call for further) interdisciplinary approaches to the pandemic. Consider how the epidemiologist who studies how pathologies spread through a population must work alongside the medical expert who studies how the virus affects individuals, as well as with the anthropologist who can report on how different social communities interact with one another, and with the data scientist who can compound and analyse all these data in a useful way. Of course, I do not take this list to be exhaustive. But a key aspect of this emphasis on interdisciplinarity is the acknowledgement of and respect towards other’s views and expertise. Taking this notion to its full extent, we can speak of the social diversity I mentioned. The idea here is not that there is diversity of scientific specialisation, but also of social standpoint. Let us take the effect of coronavirus on marginalised social communities. The exacerbated effect on black and other non-white ethnicities are due to underlying social injustices, such as their constituting a disproportionately large part of low-paid key worker positions. Whilst this cannot be ignored by the scientific community (as noted earlier on: there is a relation between their work and society), such ignorance can easily become exacerbated if, say, all scientists were white. This is not to say that white people cannot consider the ramifications of their work on marginalised populations, but that there is clear value in taking seriously the voices that have live experiences of these communities.
The Politics
I wish to make two claims about the politics around coronavirus. Firstly, that they are distinct from the scientific advice provided by the scientific community. Secondly, and by extension, that politicians must take the hit when policies are found to be inadequate. I make these each in turn.
The policies that are designed and implemented by the government are just that: policies designed and implemented by the government. The difficulty arises when considering not only all the stakeholders the government must respond to when considering their policies’ potential impacts, but also the enormous myriad of sources of information it must consider when designing their interventions. Focusing on the sources of information, a government can look to other countries’ policies, consider socioeconomic and cultural differences, and implement similar strategies. A government may also turn to big business for their economic analyses. A government may also turn to scientists to develop models that elicit patterns that may have otherwise gone unnoticed. On this occasion, and rightly so, the UK government has continuously sought advice from scientists. This allows for policies to be designed based on some “objective truth.” Furthermore, in communicating decisions, politicians can say these are “backed by scientific evidence.” However, I can think of at least two ways this wording is inadequate.
Firstly, the coronavirus pandemic is not a situation wherein there is very much space for evidence-based approaches. Whilst we can speak of relatively recent widespread pandemics, such as the 2002–2004 SARS outbreak, each pandemic regards a virus that is itself unique and that affects different territories — and each of these in different ways. Much like looking towards other nations’ policies to design one’s own approach, there are multiple layers of complexity that mean that the evidence from another pandemic does not entirely apply. This is often noted on news coverage that begins by stating that we learn more about the virus each day.
Secondly, there is a problem of inference. Inference refers to how a set of premises relate with a conclusion. And the problem here, specifically, relates to how the ultimate policy decision is made; basically, not only scientific advice is taken into account when developing the social intervention (we have already mentioned how government may consider other stakeholders). To this effect, scientists are right to say “the policy itself is beyond my expertise.” This is not to say that the scientist’s advice is perfect and exempt from scrutiny, but that the policy resulting from their advice is at least one step removed from it. The exact process whereby the policy intervention comes about may be hard to discern exactly, but my key claim is that politicians cannot fall back on scientists when things go wrong. I elaborate this point below.
The second consideration around the politics of coronavirus is the over reliance of politicians on the work of scientists when communicating their policies. Whilst it is natural that politicians rely heavily on scientific advice (particularly on this occasion), they must also be transparent in the process of inference, in how they ultimately design policy interventions. My reason for this is the blame that can wrongfully befall upon scientists if and when policies go wrong. This is a defence of a scientific community who may otherwise be harshly damaged if the public lose faith in them. This loss of faith in science, arising from the inference problem described above, is wrong. There is indeed a need for the public to hold a critical view on a science that is by no means perfect, but this should be founded on an understanding of science’s own pitfalls (such as the humanity of scientists). In this sense, politicians must be careful in supporting each and every coronavirus-related policy by some “scientific evidence.”
And the Media
I am taking the media here in broad terms. Not only am I referring to news outlets on the television, radio and online, but also social media and, more specifically, policy communication. The idea I would like to convey here is that we wrongfully hold the media — whichever media we are exposed to — as representative of social, political and cultural trends that we, as individuals, set as a benchmark by which to evaluate our own ideals.
Take the polling crises, or how news coverages around government elections can be seen as partisan or even entirely wrong in their pre-election analyses. More crucially, consider how your online social network not only influences your views, but may very well be intellectually homogeneous. In other words, one may live within a bubble that echoes back their own views and understandings. Our intellectual development and freedom, if you will, requires us to hear from and reflect on diverse standpoints. This may be a rather individualistic account of how one forms and reinforces their ideals. However, the role of influencers, or people of sufficient importance, also has a role to play in that “echo chamber.” Consider how their ideas enter your particular social network.
Now, given the pandemic, I think it is safe to assume your network is interested in how the pandemic affects us and develops. In having this curiosity, you and your network seek relevant information. This can lead you to read the newspapers you traditionally find compelling or watch the news channels you find most objective. These will, I assume, offer some analysis of politicians’ interventions. What you are ultimately exposed to in the political news coverage is at least two steps removed from any scientist’s advice. One may, even, stick to what their non-journalist social networks say. Journalistic rigour aside, the echo chambers we have access to can result in opinions and beliefs even further away from whatever “scientific evidence” determines as true. I find this to have implications, or necessitate implications, at two levels: firstly on the public’s understanding of science, secondly on the importance of getting the communication of social policies right.
Similar to before, I believe the public should have a better understanding of scientific processes. This is both to have a critically constructive view of science (not taking research outputs or scientific advice for granted), and also to be protected from unreflective communications that blame scientists for the shortfalls of policy interventions. To this effect, education is crucial, as well as transparency in governmental processes. Transparency can itself be a powerful tool for my next point.
In communicating policy interventions accurately and with full transparency, the government has the opportunity to right any confusing opinions that have made their way into the public eye. Transparency alone will not suffice, however. Politicians’ interventions (speeches, policy presentations) must also be credible. This credibility depends on their trustworthiness, which also hinges on their historic successes and transparency. Credibility and transparency will also not do alone. They require communicating in a way that is actually heard. Part of the problem with the current strategy is how policies might not reach poor communities at all. And then there is the above problem of policies being interpreted and reinterpreted by different social groups. Access to accurate and useful information is of paramount importance if the government wishes to drive a successful intervention. To this effect, news outlets must acknowledge and act consistently with their role in communicating and scrutinising policies.
During the Pandemic (and beyond)
I take the above discussion to have highlighted the role of three key players during the coronavirus pandemic: scientists, politicians and media outlets. Throughout the discussion, the importance of diversity and transparency have been brought up. I claim that these two aspects are crucial in developing accurate science, designing impactful policy interventions and communicating these effectively. I now wish to argue that the government cannot carry out their duties in isolation. Scientists, politicians and media outlets must work together to get the UK back on track. In the most philosophical style I know, let us consider the following thought experiment.
Imagine for a moment that the government were designing and implementing their policies in almost perfect isolation. Imagine the ministers of parliament all cooped up in the House of Parliament (unable to socially distance), with no internet access and designing policies based on some very basic account of “a pandemic that is going on outside.” Imagine they have some notion of what a pandemic is, and offer some behavioural guidelines for citizens to follow. They also allocate some budget for scientists to find a vaccine. Having access to only infrequent information about the country’s response, they also grant the police and the army extended rights to enforce the new guidance. Then the government sits back and lets the chaos ensue.
The first unrealistic feature of the above thought experiment is that government have no access to information. This is, of course, absurd. Not only does the government have access to very frequent information, but this data reaches them through numerous channels (be it advisors, scientists, the media, other governments, etc.). Data and diversity of sources are crucial in designing social policies. This seamlessly leads on to the thought experiment’s raison d’être: government cannot design policies in a vacuum; this process must be fed into by different voices. Furthermore, the implementation stage must be considered at all times and, thus, the response of, and impact on, society and citizens’ lives. Even this diversity at implementation stage is acknowledged by the thought experiment when giving guidelines to citizens, scientists and law enforcement bodies. But there is a great complexity surrounding impact analysis. It seems that the government must have access to “the public’s mind”, so to speak, to know that any policy will make the desired impact.
Worded this way, it is clear that there is no such “public mind,” but it seems we need some way to gauge “public sentiment.” One way to do this may be to analyse what is shared on social media, although only so many of any population are going to be consumers of social media platforms. Another way may be sending out surveys, whether to emails or by post. Once again, there will be sampling issues, as not everyone will receive the survey, and even less will respond to it. Without stepping on the toes of the political theorist any further, the idea is that public sentiment is not one for all, but a combination of sentiments of very distinct and diverse communities. Yes, we are one nation, but we, as individuals, can by no means all agree on any one thing, let alone policies that affect our most common routines.
Whilst trying to predict public sentiment towards new policies is necessary, it is not sufficient to guarantee its effectiveness. Enter, once again, the media and politicians’ ability to influence views. The role I am asking the politician to take seriously is not that of a leader or influencer, but that of a messenger. A messenger who describes not only how policies are designed, but what is to be expected of the people. This message, in turn, must be communicated clearly and with sufficient detail to cover as many bases as possible — wriggle room to interpret government guidelines during a crisis such as the coronavirus pandemic should not be allowed. Such communication must also be enacted — returning to the need for credibility, any political figure’s failure to follow government rules will undoubtably undermine said credibility. It is to this effect that I believe that the government must take transparency seriously, respecting both the many perspectives that were considered in designing policies (namely, scientists’ and their very specific role) and the immensity of the population they are seeking to influence in their public statements.
In Summary
This text, I take it, has made no bold claims, but has simply tried to relate three parties that have critical roles to play during the coronavirus pandemic: scientific communities, government and the media. The order of exposition has followed that of a basic design and implementation of any social intervention: the gathering of relevant data, the design of the policy, and the communication of guidelines. Throughout the text, I have hinted at the need for critical scrutiny of each party on the public’s part, and highlighted the need for diverse views to be considered every step of the way, as well as the need for transparency. Both diversity and transparency, I believe, allow for these three parties to work together in a more integrated fashion, so that the role of scientists is taken as distinct from that of policy-making, and so that the communication of public policies becomes clearer to a wider audience.
The question regarding the relationship between social events and individuals of a population has remained unanswered, but I take the relationship of these three parties to hint at just how complex the question really is; partly because there are many other key players, partly because each party’s role can be interpreted differently by each member of society. But it is in the description of the integration of the three, through diversity and transparency, that I believe the relation between social events and a society’s members can become clearer and more distinct.
This piece was originally published on the Philosophy for Business blog
Thank you to Yo Yehudi and Jonathan Schulte for reviewing this piece before publication!
