Has the pandemic changed public attitudes about science?

Has the pandemic changed public attitudes about science?

‘These results [of surveys] show clear evidence that scientific and medical experts are enjoying a surge in public support on top of their already high levels of public trust. With some variation from country to country and among different groups within countries, the overall picture of pandemic-era public opinion is a success story for science’s status amidst this crisis.

‘The impacts from COVID-19 will be with us for years to come. However, questions remain as to how this re-affirmed trust might be built on. How can the increased levels of trust in science be maintained? What proactive steps can scientific institutions take to ensure that they continue earning this trust? How might support for science be used to focus further public engagement on other global challenges such as climate change? Framed in these terms, moves such as the UK government’s decision to invest in a new research agency (ARIA), may indicate more widespread changes in the direction of science policy.

‘At a structural level, the public faith in science’s trustworthiness and value can also be ‘future proofed’ through ongoing initiatives to make scientific research open and transparent, enhanced efforts to ensure a more diverse and inclusive scientific workforce and other efforts to improve science from within. Initiatives working in this direction include increased adoption of open science policies by research funders and global public policy that promotes more socially responsible research and innovation. Indeed, this moment of strong public support may be the perfect opportunity for long-needed structural reforms to make research more socially responsible and sustainable. In other words, it’s time to fix the roof while the sun is shining!’

Read here (LSE Blog, Mar 12, 2021)

Six political philosophies in search of a virus: Critical perspectives on the coronavirus pandemic

 ‘The Coronavirus (Covid-19) poses interesting questions for social and political thought. These include the nature and limits of the ethical responsibility of the state, personal liberty and collective interests, human dignity, and state surveillance. As many countries throughout the world declared states of emergency, some of the major questions in political philosophy become suddenly highly relevant. Foucault’s writings on biopolitical securitization and Agamben’s notion of the state of exception take on a new reality, as do the classical arguments of utilitarianism and libertarianism. In this paper, I discuss six main philosophical responses to the pandemic, including provocative interventions made by Agamben, Badieu, and Zizek, Latour on the governance of life and death as well as the Kantian perspective of Habermas on human dignity...

‘If there is a single conclusion to be drawn from these philosophies, it is that the Coronavirus is more than a pathogen that threatens the lives of many people, but democracy is also in danger from the recent experiments with emergency government. These may not result in a permanent state of exception or the suspension of democracy – letting aside the Anthropocene scenario of extreme climate change requiring long-term states of exception – and the solution is not a simple restoration of individual liberty. Perhaps then more significant in the long-term will be new technologies of emergency governance that are now taking shape in large-scale societal experimentation with the technocratic management of populations in rapidly changing circumstances. Governments have acquired considerable technocratic power over their populations, which have been disciplined in the late Foucauldian sense of the term to desire safety over liberty.’

Download here (LSE European Institute, May 2020)

Bringing in the experts: Blame deflection and the COVID-19 crisis

“The contemporary visibility and political emphasis on ‘the experts’ is therefore a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it is completely rational to heed the advice of those who have dedicated their professional lives to understanding and protecting public health; on the other hand, it is also a depoliticisation strategy in the sense that politicians who have dedicated their professional lives to not going MAD (i.e. falling foul of ‘multiple accountabilities disorder’) will understand the benefit of allowing ‘the experts’ to become the public face of the crisis.”

Read here (LSE, April 3, 2020)