Academics who have stuck to their science during Covid have nevertheless found themselves?embroiled in policy disagreements, an Australian forum has heard.

Deakin University epidemiologist Catherine Bennett said political leaders¡¯ practice of ¡°overstating the science¡± ¨C by?portraying certain aspects of Covid restrictions as science-based, when in fact they were applied for other reasons ¨C had ¡°pushed more people into the sceptical basket¡± during the coronavirus crisis.

Professor Bennett said leaders had used epidemiological grounds to justify lockdown measures employed for enforcement purposes. This had put scientists in a difficult position, reluctant to undermine public health efforts but unwilling to misrepresent those aspects of the restrictions as science-based.

People recognised that some measures had not been applied for scientific reasons, she told a??hosted by Deakin¡¯s Research for Educational Impact centre. ¡°And we as scientists couldn¡¯t defend it. When we were asked, ¡®What does the curfew do?¡¯ we couldn¡¯t defend it. When we were asked, ¡®Why are we still in lockdown [after] weeks with no cases?¡¯, we couldn¡¯t defend it.

ÖйúAƬ

¡°You¡¯re¡­pulled into the lens as a scientist [when it is] no longer specifically about the science. That¡¯s a challenge. I¡¯m hoping that¡­science won¡¯t bear the burden of too many of those decisions.¡±

Public trust in science had also been eroded by ¡°mixed messages¡±, as different Australian states rolled out different containment measures. ¡°If our leaders¡­are listening to the science, as they always say, then why is the response different? When you don¡¯t have consistency across states or between state and federal [governments], that contributes to some of the difficulty.

ÖйúAƬ

¡°If you¡¯re expressing science that is seen to support a policy [which] someone takes a very strong position on, you are not talking science ¨C you are talking policy. And you are classified within that context,¡± she said.

She said she had been castigated as a dictator¡¯s ¡°mouthpiece¡± for advocating lockdowns and offered a tin hat for not believing in lockdowns, all in the same week. ¡°People will attack the science, and if they can¡¯t get satisfaction with that, they will attack the scientists.¡±

Academics had also been played off against each other, as quickfire interviews with commentators with different specialties ¨C or different access to information ¨C exposed disagreements between experts whose views might have converged ¡°if you had them in a room together, having a conversation¡±.

She said had encouraged communication among Australia¡¯s epidemiologists, to share information rather than to achieve consensus. ¡°But, generally, we find we¡¯re very much on the same page.¡±

ÖйúAƬ

Australian National University vice-chancellor Brian Schmidt said policy characterised as evidence-based was often merely ¡°evidence-informed¡±, with political decisions and other ¡°contextual bits¡± contributing to the finished product.

¡°What we do in the public sphere is really hard and ambiguous,¡± Professor Schmidt told the forum. ¡°We need to be very careful about where we¡¯re on solid ground, and where we¡¯re going on to other ground.¡±

Deakin University science historian Alexandra Roginski said the pandemic had opened a window on the apparently chaotic interplay of science and policy. ¡°This is a unique moment in terms of people being able to [get] under the bonnet of science to see how a lot of these discussions and processes take place,¡± she said.

john.ross@timeshighereducation.com