Navigating the Nexus: Politics, Science, and Societal Values in the Era of Post-Normal Science
In our current era, characterized by immense stakes and the imperative for scientific progress, a bold approach is imperative.
Merely advancing cautiously and at a measured pace is no longer sufficient for the scientific community.
The stark reality of navigating a global pandemic has brought about a profound realization: the realm of practical science diverges greatly from the simplistic “hypothesize, test, repeat” model we encounter in academia. Merely because a statement originates from a distinguished scientist does not automatically grant it infallibility.
A mere year ago, I would have confidently assumed that the role of science amidst a global crisis would be clear-cut: scientists conduct their research, relay their findings, and lives are saved as a result. I would have been astounded to learn just how deeply politicized scientific discourse could become, with purportedly science-informed individuals advocating for opposed actions based on identical data, all while the stakes soar to unprecedented heights.
A recent case in point is the divergent decisions made by various European governments regarding the AstraZeneca vaccine’s rollout amidst concerns of potential clotting disorders. While regulatory bodies in the UK and Europe found no substantial evidence linking the vaccine to such disorders, many scientists argued that the occurrence of clotting incidents was within the expected range even without vaccination, making the risk of restricting its distribution during investigations outweigh the benefits.
Why did nations, armed with identical information, arrive at disparate conclusions? The most charitable interpretation suggests that some governments opted to halt distribution temporarily to uphold long-term public trust in COVID-19 vaccines. A less flattering perspective insinuates that governments already predisposed against AstraZeneca due to prior disputes with the EU were inclined towards this decision, potentially undermining public confidence through an erratic approach unsupported by evidence.
An illuminating framework for comprehending this phenomenon is “post-normal science,” born out of contentious debates surrounding issues like BSE, climate change, and GM crops. This concept, which I encountered while producing a documentary on Covid science for Radio 4, delineates a mode of scientific inquiry unfolding amidst profound uncertainty, value conflicts, heightened stakes, and urgent decision-making. Covid science, in particular, epitomizes post-normal science on an unprecedented scale, elucidating how the ostensibly impartial domain of science, tasked with dispensing wisdom, has been enmeshed in political wrangling.
Post-normal science is particularly susceptible to flawed methodologies. Given the novelty of Covid, our understanding remains nascent, allowing for contradictory conclusions to emerge from scientific studies. In such circumstances, the notion of “following the science” can devolve into cherry-picking data to suit one’s political agenda. While this phenomenon isn’t novel—tobacco and oil companies have long sought to discredit scientific consensus—Covid’s empirical landscape enables even amateur ideologues to find studies supporting their views. Consequently, debates surrounding seemingly straightforward interventions like mask-wearing have been unduly politicized.
Moreover, the high-stakes, uncertain nature of post-normal science facilitates the infiltration of scientists’ biases. The past year has witnessed egregious errors, such as the hasty endorsement of hydroxychloroquine based on flawed data, potentially driven by a desire to refute President Trump’s claims. While such incidents may seem incongruous amidst the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines, the politicization of COVID-19 science likely influenced pivotal government decisions, including the timing of lockdowns, underscoring the need to reevaluate scientific practices in post-normal conditions.
A significant impediment lies in our inflated expectations of science as an impartial quest for truth, untainted by political or commercial interests. We idealize scientists as arbiters of undeniable wisdom, conveniently absolving politicians of accountability by deferring to “expert advice.” Yet, the uncomfortable reality is that science is inherently fallible and value-laden. Dismissing the notion that expertise matters not only perpetuates a post-truth narrative but also overlooks the nuanced interplay between science, politics, and societal values—a realization imperative for navigating future crises with prudence and integrity.