Following the science? Views from scientists on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study in five European countries

  1. Elien Colman
  2. Marta Wanat
  3. Herman Goossens
  4. Sarah Tonkin-Crine
  5. Sibyl Anthierens

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

In order to tackle the pandemic, governments have established various types of advisory boards to provide evidence and recommendations to policy makers. Scientists working on these boards have faced many challenges, including working under significant time constraints to produce ‘evidence’ as quickly as possible. However, their voices are still largely missing in the discussion. This study explores the views and experiences of scientists working on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the aim to learn lessons for future pandemic management and preparedness.

Methods

We conducted online video or telephone semi-structured interviews between December 2020 and April 2021 with 21 scientists with an official government advisory role during the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium, the Netherlands, UK, Sweden and Germany. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed and analysed using a combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis techniques.

Results

Scientists viewed the initial focus on biomedically oriented work during the pandemic as somewhat one-dimensional, but also highlighted difficulties of working in an interdisciplinary way. They found it difficult at times to ensure that the evidence is understood and taken on board by governments. They found themselves taking on new roles, the boundaries of which were not clearly defined. Consequently, they were often perceived and treated as a public figure.

Conclusion

Scientists working on advisory boards in European countries faced similar challenges, highlighting key lessons to be learnt. Future pandemic preparedness efforts should focus on building interdisciplinary collaboration through development of scientists’ skills and appropriate infrastructure; ensuring transparency in how boards operate; defining and protecting the boundaries of the scientific advisor role; and supporting scientists to inform the public in the fight against disinformation, while dealing with potential hostile reactions.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006928
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.07.06.21260099: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: All participants gave verbal consent to take part.
    Sex as a biological variableData collection: Two female experienced post-doctoral qualitative researchers (EC and MW) conducted video or telephone interviews.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Strengths and weaknesses of the study: To our knowledge, this is the first international study exploring the experiences of scientists working on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic, thus giving a voice to key actors in this pandemic. The heterogeneity of our sample, who consisted of both medical and social scientists in five European countries, has enabled us to examine a variety of perspectives. We also note some limitations. Firstly, the limited number of participants from some countries prevented us from making cross-country comparisons. It was encouraging though that scientists’ views within and between countries have largely been consistent, highlighting that the key tensions and opportunities of working as a scientist during the COVID-19 pandemic were shared between contexts. Secondly, the current study only describes the views and experiences of scientists advising policy makers at a national level. Exploring views of scientists working on international scientific boards might also be beneficial. In addition, giving a voice to policymakers could also lead to valuable lessons on how to improve the collaboration between scientists and policy makers. Thirdly, interviews with scientists were conducted during the second and/or third waves in their respective countries. Interviewing scientists during the first wave might have shed a different light on their experiences; however, by asking them to reflect on what has changed, we were able to capture some ...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.07.06.21260099v1 on medRxiv