PANDEMIC POLICY IS MORE COMPLICATED THAN “FOLLOW THE SCIENCE”

When it comes to fighting COVID-19 and its mutant variants, the two national approaches that have played out over the past year are clear. First, there was the Trump policy of relying on the former president’s questionable instincts backed by fringe scientists who agreed with him. No new regulation could escape the Center for Disease Control without being adversely scrubbed by pro Trump political operatives. By mid-summer, the former president was ignoring the pandemic and had placed all implementation responsibility on the state governors.

Now we have the Biden administration’s welcome transparency on COVID-19 policy under the slogan that his team will “follow the science.” His staff holds daily briefings, and there are centralized plans for winding down the crisis.  The president displays an empathetic concern for those affected economically and for those who have lost their lives.  Currently, Biden is moving a 1.9 trillion dollar stimulus package through Congress. 

While I am pleased with the turn of events since the inauguration, I am skeptical of the Biden claim that he is simply “following the science.” I find this a misleading slogan to explain the complex pandemic decision-making at the federal level. In truth, other factors besides empirical science are under consideration in addressing the virus. The new administration should clarify this fact for the American people.

To rely on science as the determining influence on policy is to misunderstand what science is. All scientists are by definition trained in the scientific method.  This process uses data gained through observation to remove uncertainties around a hypothesis in an effort to determine the truth. Scientists utilize proven facts to understand the world. The validity and importance of the scientific method is well documented. During the pandemic the scientific method has worked well to standardize the mitigation directives of mask wearing and social distancing.  

However, the process of organizing scientific knowledge in order to formulate policy through institutions and advisory committees is driven by more than raw data.  Politics, economic concerns as well as social constraints are also a part of the equation.

Sociologists have carefully studied the interplay between science and governmental policy.  On the surface, it may appear that public health policy depends solely on scientific information. By digging deeper researchers have found the process is more convoluted.  When faced with a new problem, policy makers tend to deconstruct the basic science depending on the ultimate goals of public officials and the political interest groups they serve. This is followed by a reconstruction of the fact-based science to achieve a plausible scientific rationale for the proposed action.

Rather than a monolithic scientific approach to the pandemic, we have observed this process of deconstructing and reconstructing scientific findings play out over and over on the world stage.  It is significant that there have been a long list of conflicting scientific studies over how to cope with a rapidly expanding, changing and mutating viral pandemic. Given this plethora of scientific studies against a background of divergent political, social and economic considerations, no two countries have “followed the science” according to the same prescription. Some national plans have succeeded better than others.  None has been perfect.  All have been different.

Anyone who believes that the Biden administration is only “following the science” in cobbling together the stimulus bill now before Congress would be way off base.  Certain provisions of the proposed law are designed to shore up the Affordable Care Act by making it economical to more Americans.  Other provisions that provide funds to assist financially strapped state and local governments and to distribute enhanced unemployment benefits are based on unemployment rates in each state. Democratic states that had shut down earlier and longer benefited the most from these proposed distributions. Overall, Republican states had briefer shutdowns and lower unemployment rates. This will limit their ability to receive assistance from these programs.

There is also Democratic favoritism concerning the dispersal of the vaccine and most recently, free, high quality masks.  Centralized mass distribution sites in Democratic urban areas are more effective in reaching citizens than vaguer decentralized plans to inoculate individuals and provide free masks in Republican rural areas. Moreover, Americans outside of population centers often do not have access to the internet services needed to sign up for the vaccine or to apply for federally enhanced unemployment benefits.

The Biden stimulus package is a good one and has wide support because of the financial payouts to all Americans.  I support all of its goals.  However, many provisions have little to do with empirical scientific data and everything to do with fulfilling campaign promises and rewarding the Democratic base.

Instead of “follow the science” as adopted by the Biden administration, a more accurate phrase would be, “We consider the recommendations of the best science in a changing pandemic environment in conjunction with our political, economic and social goals.”

The White House must take both credit and responsibility for its decisions separate and apart from scientific data.  In the end, Biden’s use of science to implement Democratic goals is far better than the plan of the previous administration to “ignore the science” and wait for the virus to disappear on its own.