![](data:image/svg+xml,<svg xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" width="120" height="120"><rect fill-opacity="0"/></svg>)
The Hallett Inquiry: Eminence-based medicine Part 8
The Hallett Inquiry: Eminence-based medicine Part 8
We need consensus science, or do we?
We continue with our series of brief posts focussing on the transcript of Professor Dame Angela McLean’s testimony on November 23rd, 2023.
Dame Angela was a leading light in SAGE and is currently the UK Government's Chief Scientific Advisor.
Here, Dame Angela is describing her preparations for the 20th of September meeting with the PM:
Scientific consensus represents a position generally agreed upon by most scientists in a given field at a specific time. It means all the scientists must support the idea, and that's what the government’s advice provided - consensus.
Consensus is often seen as the ultimate truth. However, it's essential to understand that the scientific consensus is usually developed over many years of experimentation and testing of hypotheses. Yet, all too often, the consensus is debunked by scientific pursuit. Therefore, the consensus should not be given undue importance in the process of scientific discovery.
Consensus is not truth - experts can be wrong. However, the consensus amongst government advisors creates problems in overturning or questioning their eminence-based claims.
Scientific ideas lack scientific consensus when they are new ideas. Therefore, McClean is saying as scientists, they have nothing new to offer - they have no new ideas. Previously, we showed that doing studies was akin to doing nothing, and conducting them was not an effective use of their time.
Consensus only works if the scientists agree; however, many scientists outside SAGE disagreed with their approach.
This should have set off alarm bells in the advisory machinery; however, it didn't, as the advisors sought to fix the consensus by agreeing en masse that lockdowns were the only way forward and that the next time the consensus has been agreed upon - it needs to be harder and faster.
In a fast-moving pandemic, the last thing you need is consensus. You need flexibility in thinking and ideas that respond to new evidence as it emerges. You also need an approach to testing your ideas outside the groupthink that arises. The experienced scientific advisor should know how to deal with disagreement and embrace new knowledge as it appears.
The question is, what will it take to break the consensus?
The Hallett Inquiry: Eminence-based medicine Part 8
Safety in numbers, group think, consensus, sheeple. Call it what you like but the sad fact is that individuals that seek solace in the backing of their colleagues, although a very human and common trait, is not a characteristic that should be overlooked when appointing individuals to an expert emergency panel. These are exactly the wrong type of people that should be on SAGE and yet whoever made the appointments seem not to have considered it. I don’t know how SAGE is formed or how it operates in non-emergency times but it is too late when an emergency arises to start thinking about its members. Sort out how SAGE appointments are made, ensure every meeting has properly recorded minutes (including dissenting voices), ensure they issue clear advice (including do nothing), and perhaps we might have a better outcome next time.
"In a fast-moving pandemic, the last thing you need is consensus". Good summary of the main problem. I am surprised by the rambling English; I hear young children answering questions on TV news who speak more clearly and to the point. I feel the stress of cognitive dissonance, are these people really the ones with power to affect our lives?