BMJ | 2021
Conflicts of interest among the UK government’s covid-19 advisers: what has the configuration of SAGE got to do with it?
Abstract
Thacker’s point about failure to declare conflicts of interest, and especially financial conflicts, is surely correct1—butwhat has the configuration of expertise on the Scientific AdvisoryGroup for Emergencies (SAGE) got to do with that argument? The author implies that modellers are over-represented within the group, illustrating (by innuendo) the malign effects of SAGE’s relationship to government by implying that it is not up to the job. These kinds of remarks represent an undesirable drift towards the use of rhetorical devices, rather than logical argument, to support a position—creating an atmosphere of scepticism about the competence of scientific endeavour as well as about its integrity.2 Similarly, the six members of SAGE who represent Public Health England might be bemused by the idea that public health expertise is deficient on the committee. After all, most realistic commentators acknowledge that failure to use the expertise of public health practitioners (for example, in test and trace) is not the result of poor advice from experts but a political decision to favour outsourcing to private companies at whatever cost to effectiveness or efficiency. The need for extra “behavioural researchers” is likewise not well made. Two of the most senior members of that community recently acknowledged in The BMJ3 that “there is almost no relevant evidence on how to promote adherence to behaviours such as distancing from other people and households, hand cleansing, effective use of face coverings, and avoiding touching one’s eyes, nose, or mouth with contaminated hands.” Not a surprise to those who have been dismayed for some time about the unrealistic claims being made for behavioural science in other areas of health research.4 So why press for more of the same? Perhaps a minor criticism of an otherwise supportable article, but not a trivial one.