An Impossible Balancing Act For Scientists?

Public Health specialist, Davi Sridhar (University of Edinburgh) is very concerned about recent relevations from the UK's Covid Pandemic enquiry. She feels the Chief Scientific Adviser and the Chief Medical Officer were essentially used to deflect criticism from the UK government's erractic performance. Sridhar notes that both individuals are respected scientists but, standing alongside the Prime Minister (PM) enabled him to claim government was 'following the science', when this was evidently not the case (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/nov/03/scientific-advisers-covid-inquiry-chris-whitty-scientists). The Chief Scientific Adviser and the Chief Medical Officer were in a very difficult situation, as they are employed by the government. The could offer advice but couldn't insist on anything. If they wanted to signal that the wrong choices were being made, very public resignation was the only effective option available to them. Both must have thought it was better to stay, to try and inject a little sanity into the political thinking? Otherwise, the PM might well have requisitioned all the country's hairdriers, to blow the virus out of patient's nostrils. We clearly need a much better and less deferential way of directing informed scientific opinion to political decision-makers. A bit more scientific expertise in government might also help.