A consistent claim from governments around the world during the Coronavirus pandemic has been that they were following the science. This raises the question, central to this paper, of what and whose knowledge is or should be sought, which is being side-lined through the choice of particular framings and discourses, and with what consequences for the creation and implementation of evidence-based policy to tackle wicked problems. Through the lens of Fricker’s epistemic injustice, I problematise the expertise that has guided the (...) COVID-19 response as epistemically narrow and argue that counteracting a monolithic culture of expertise requires tackling the structural inequalities in the systems of knowledge production to diversify the social and epistemological foundations of science. Drawing on Post-normal Science (PNS) theory, I suggest that the expertise needed to respond to the challenges of a post-COVID world is one that embraces greater pluralism, avoids groupthink, challenges the accepted orthodoxy and helps us revert old models and rigid path dependencies that so often neglect the lived realities and demands of those left behind. This can only be realised by overcoming epistemic injustice and embracing epistemic democracy in the practice of evidence-based policy. (shrink)

What is post-normal science? What are the reasons for, and consequences of, encountering it in one’s professional life? Here I share my own experience of readings, practices and discussions with the fathers, supporters and detractors of PNS. After a short description of PNS and of my own experience with it, I review some common criticism levelled to PNS from different authors and conclude reflecting on how PNS—difficult to explain and translate into formulae or checklists—provides its practitioners with useful keys to (...) open relevant doors to understanding, and might be especially suited to face the present intersecting crises befalling the use of science for policy. (shrink)