The answer to Philip Ball (Should scientists run the country?, 27 September) is that it is the process, not the people, that should run the country. Science gets things right, despite the biases of its practitioners, by requiring that it be evidence-based, but also that the evidence is repeatable to the satisfaction of the community of scientists. Even so, for complex problems typical of policymaking, the science rarely leads to one answer. What we discover from our observations are cause-effect options – for example, the adverse effects from different exposures to chemicals in the environment, greenhouse gases and viral infections.
Making decisions about acceptable options, such as mandating lockdowns in the face of rising infections, is based on values. The science is silent on these. In a democracy, these should reflect the preferences of the public, not those of scientists. When the views of scientists dominate, they appear political and elitist. This kind of technocracy has turned people off and led to populist reactions in both the EU and the US. We surely need more transparency in this process, as Ball suggests, but in a participatory way.
Governments need to develop more citizen forums for discussing options and making choices in open dialogue with experts. These should recognise that science works, but that the policy options suggested by science are many and varied, and that policy decisions should reflect public preferences.
Prof Peter Calow
Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.
