“Follow the science” was commonly repeated during debates on COVID-19-related policy. The phrase “follow the science” raises questions that are central to our theories of knowledge and the application of scientific knowledge to maximize the wellbeing of our society. The purpose of this study was to (1) perform a scoping review of literature discussing “follow the science” and COVID-19, and (2) consider “follow the science” in the context of pediatric health. A comprehensive search of 14 databases was performed on May (...) 23, 2023. Articles were included if they used terms such as “follow the science”, “follow the scientists”, “listen to science” or “listen to scientists”, and discussed COVID-19. There were 24 articles included in the final review. Existing literature on “follow the science” (1) differentiates between scientific knowledge and policy decisions; (2) emphasizes the importance of social sciences in policy making; (3) calls for more transparency in the knowledge synthesis and policy generating process; and (4) finds that scientific advisors see their role as advising on science rather than policy decision making. There was no definitional, epistemological, or philosophical intellectual defense of “follow the science” in the peer reviewed literature. Policy requires (1) reliable data and (2) agreement on what to do considering those empirical facts by appealing to values, ethics, morality, and law. A review of school shutdowns is used as an example of the inadequacy of “follow the science” as a guiding principle for public policy. (shrink)

We discuss the relationship between expertise, expert authority, and trust in the case of vaccine research and policy, with a particular focus on COVID-19 vaccines. We argue that expert authority is not merely an epistemic notion, but entails being trusted by the relevant public and is valuable if it is accompanied by expert trustworthiness. Trustworthiness requires, among other things, being transparent, acknowledging uncertainty and expert disagreement (e.g., around vaccines’ effectiveness and safety), being willing to revise views in response to new (...) evidence, and being clear about the values that underpin expert recommendations. We explore how failure to acknowledge expert disagreement and uncertainty can undermine trust in vaccination and public health experts, using expert recommendations around COVID-19 vaccines as a case study. (shrink)

Two challenges have faced policymakers during the Covid-19 pandemic: First, they must determine the reliability of expert testimony in the face of uncertainty; second, they must determine the relevance of different kinds of expertise with regard to particular decisions. I argue that both these problems can be fruitfully analyzed through the lens of trust by introducing an in-depth case study of Iceland’s handling of the first wave of the Covid-19 pandemic. I contend that the problem of relevance highlights the limited (...) appeal of a thoroughly technocratic society. Value judgments, best realized through democratic processes, are always lurking in the background. (shrink)

Expert-informed public policy often depends on a degree of public trust in the relevant expert authorities. But if lay citizens are not themselves authorities on the relevant area of expertise, how can they make good judgements about the trustworthiness of those who claim such authority? I argue that the answer to this question depends on the kind of trust under consideration. Specifically, I maintain that a distinction between epistemic trust and recommendation trust has consequences for novices judging the trustworthiness of (...) experts. I argue for this by identifying the unique difficulties that emerge when a novice is asked not just to believe expert testimony, but to follow expert recommendations. I outline criteria for novice judgements of expert trustworthiness that have been proposed by Elizabeth Anderson and show that novel problems emerge for her criteria when we shift focus from epistemic trust to recommendation trust. More is needed when we are asked not just to believe the experts but to act as they recommend, because novices looking for trustworthy expert recommendations need to establish whether the recommended course of action supports what is important to them and accords with their values. (shrink)