Scientization Under Pressure—The Problematic Role of Expert Bodies During the Handling of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Assessing the impact of an evidence- and consensus-based guideline for controlling SARS-CoV-2 transmission in German schools on decision-making processes: a multi-component qualitative analysis

INTRODUCTION

During the COVID-19 pandemic, decision-making on measures to reduce or prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in schools was rendered difficult by a rapidly evolving and uncertain evidence base regarding their effectiveness and unintended consequences. To support decision-makers, an interdisciplinary panel of scientific experts, public health and school authorities as well as those directly affected by school measures, was convened in an unprecedented effort to develop an evidence- and consensus-based public health guideline for German schools. This study sought to assess whether and how this guideline impacted decision-making processes.

METHODS

This study comprised three components: (1) we sent inquiries according to the Freedom of Information Acts of each Federal State to ministries of education, family, and health. (2) We conducted semi-structured interviews with individuals involved in decision-making regarding school measures in two Federal States, and (3) we undertook semi-structured interviews with members of the guideline panel. The content of response letters in component 1 was analysed descriptively; data for components 2 and 3 were analysed using deductive-inductive thematic qualitative content analysis according to Kuckartz.

RESULTS

Responses to the Freedom of Information Act inquiries showed that the guideline was recognised as a relevant source of information by ministries of education in nine out of 16 Federal States and used as a reference to check existing directives for school measures in five Federal States. All participants (20 interviews) emphasised the value of the guideline given its evidence- and consensus-based development process but also noted limitations in its usability and usefulness, e.g., lack of context-specificity. It was consulted by participants who advised policy-makers (5 interviews) alongside other sources of evidence. Overall, perceptions regarding the guideline's impact were mixed.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that the guideline was relatively well-known in Federal States' decision-making bodies and that it was considered alongside other forms of evidence in some of these. We suggest that further research to evaluate the impact of public health guidelines on (political) decision-making is warranted. Guideline development processes may need to be adapted to account for the realities of decision-making during public health emergencies and beyond.

An evaluation of North Carolina science advice on COVID-19 pandemic response

This qualitative case study contributes to the international research project EScAPE (Evaluating Scientific Advice in a Pandemic Emergency) and aims to understand how state leaders mobilized science advice in pandemic response during 2020 and into the early months of 2021. North Carolina, a state in the southeastern United States, mobilized much of its pandemic science advice through the state's Department of Health and Human Services. A fluid relationship between advisors and the governor-credited as a crucial component of a science driven, balanced pandemic response-created an opaque hub of advising and power. I analyze three advisory processes apparent during early stages of pandemic response noting strengths in mutual respect and trust between advisors and policymakers, data transparency, and commitment to equitable vaccine distribution. The interpersonal dynamics that provided these "good" science advice outcomes are a result of the individuals involved but the dynamic is not guaranteed in government over time. Also, while North Carolina provided data transparency it is unclear how data trends connected to decisions. There is a general lack of transparency around the breadth and content of advice. Transparency of advisory mechanisms is important to maintain public trust in government. Deep partisanship in the United States and distrust between leaders of opposing parties underscores the need for states to develop strong institutions for science advise to policymakers in an emergency. This article closes with several recommendations.

The Nordic governments' responses to the Covid-19 pandemic: A comparative study of variation in governance arrangements and regulatory instruments

Government responses to the Covid-19 pandemic in the Nordic states-Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden-exhibit similarities and differences. This article investigates the extent to which crisis policymaking diverges from normal policymaking within the Nordic countries and whether variations between the countries are associated with the role of expertise and the level of politicization. Government responses are analyzed in terms of governance arrangements and regulatory instruments. Findings demonstrate some deviation from normal policymaking within and considerable variation between the Nordic countries, as Denmark, Finland, and to some extent Norway exhibit similar patterns with hierarchical command and control governance arrangements, while Iceland, in some instances, resembles the case of Sweden, which has made use of network-based governance. The article shows that the higher the influence of experts, the more likely it is that the governance arrangement will be network-based.