Formal and informal science advice in emergencies: COVID-19 in the UK

Abstract

The importance of scientific advice to government gains greater recognition in emergencies but inevitably has to be done in an environment of uncertainty, with limited data and at high speed. Adapting existing structures is more effective than creating new ones in an emergency. Between emergencies, the UK has a structured scientific advice system, including Chief Scientific Advisers, scientists in government, regulatory bodies and independent expert committees, which were adapted to COVID-19 under the umbrella of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies. These worked alongside networks of informal scientific advice, including internationally. Multiple sciences were needed, including from the social sciences and engineering in addition to clinical science and epidemiology, and these had to be integrated. A centrally directed clinical research programme helped provide practitioners robust evidence, with observational and interventional trials providing data for policy and testing treatments and vaccines. The scale of the emergency meant unavoidable tension between detailed work and speed, and between an integrated scientific view usable in decision-making and constructive challenge. While a final judgement of the UK scientific response will take time, everyone should be grateful to the thousands of scientists involved for the research, synthesis and advice, which improved outcomes for the public.