UKH

It would appear that Cummings has been sitting in on the independant body SAGE who are leading the scientific policy to the government. Why would an unelected advisor be present and not the deputy prime minister and why is Cummings anywhere near this body. Apparently other politicians can listen in but must submit questions in writing. If there is a good reason fine but if it's to lead policy then it's undemocratic and the policy is not led purely by science as we have been repeated told every night on briefings and every news outlet constantly. 

Of course Cummings will have a significant input into policy and no this isn't undemocratic. All politicians of every shape and colour have advisors who provide input into policy. It's perfectly normal.

N.b. this is irrespective of whether you like or dislike Cummings (odd chap isn't he)

Why is it such a problem that an unelected person holds power? The way I see, BJ holds power because a majority of parliament wants him to. He then uses this power to appoint others to hold part of the power. Do you think it makes a difference if Cummings was put in parliament before using some conservative safe seat?

The way the advisory committee sits is they formulate a recommendation based purely on the science irrespective of policy and without direct input from politicians, this is then put to the politicians, it is only at this point that Cummins should get his paws on it not at the actual formation of the recommendation. The principal of  separation of science and politics is important especially in a system like ours which runs on a slightly Laissez-faire manner.

I’m guessing that he’s at the meetings because, like him or not, he’s unquestionably bright, science-friendly, and not only has the ear of the PM but is employed by the government to brief Boris and shape policy. That's the government’s policy, not SAGE’s recommendations.

In fact, I’m not sure I can think of anyone better targeted by role, responsibility and aptitude to act as the government’s earpiece. Whether he’s elected or not is irrelevant. He’s part of the apparatus of government.

Ah yes, that first in Ancient and Modern History must be a real boon when discussing stats, significance testing, double blind RCT, epidemiology and all the rest.

To me, it’s not that he is unelected, it’s that his role is deeply political in nature.  If the government need someone unelected to help them interpret the advisory board, they should have recourse to the more neutral civil service.  It’s no coincidence that Cummings has his knives out for them and Priti Patel is allegedly literally screaming at senior staff until they quit.

He is also far from impartial when it comes to epidemiology vs modelling I think, as a cursory look at his January blog post / civil service warning shot / recruitment drive / etc suggests in terms of his affectation for data sciences and jolly clever computer/maths/physics stuff.  Given reports of a schism in the advisory group along “traditional” and “modelling led” views, a picture of one possible sequence of events form.  I could be totally wrong - if I am someone can dig this post up after the public enquiry and remind me. 

This is the blog - https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/dominiccummings.com/2020/01/02/two-hands-are... - I’ve yet to find a scientist who has reacted positively to it, not for political reasons I hasten to add.

What a strange and narrow-minded comment. Most scholars who can achieve a first at Oxford can handle ideas across the spectrum. Look up the term polymath.

I think the issue is not around democracy, more around transparency and confidence in the advice.  It may be useful. If as far as possible the minutes and outcomes, were published.  It must be born in mind that minutes aren’t a verbatim account of proceedings, more edited highlights.  Some meetings are recorded to help minute drafting but are not made public, indeed are usually erased when the minutes are agreed.

What struck me was that apparently Cummings attended the meeting prior to lockdown being announced by bojo.  How is this sinister?

I’d say it’s inappropriate for politicians or their advisors to be involved full stop. 

Though I find Cummings dubious and I always like reading your opinion on here, this argument is a bit elitist. It is actually possible to learn something that you were not formally educated in. If it wasn't, Id likely have had no career at all (although one or two people didn't like me at all as I'd strayed...). 

Cummings does seem to be rather bright - that does not excuse him from having some dodgy ideas. Or stop him being a malign influence on the PM

Inappropriate to be involved in the sense of steering the meetings perhaps. But wholly appropriate to listen in and clarify. SAGE is an advisor to the government, isn’t it? SAGE’s leading members are state employees.

Maybe it would be easier if everyone just wrote “ I hate Cummings/Boris/Raab” and had done with it.

These scientists should be discussing whatever they need to alone, zero need for an 'adviser' to be there....the 'adviser' can advise on policy when SAGE has decided what to present to the government. 

It is though an argument Cummings has used with regards to graduates enterining the civil service.  Its really quite odd reading his stuff and then looking at his background since he seems to perfectly fit what he doesnt approve off. Humanities grad who has never really worked outside politics save a couple of mysterious years in Russia.

Being self taught only really works if you get to actively test that learning and find out which bits you misunderstood and also which bits are good in theory but dont survive contact with the real world.

in this case I would say that there are a problem with the cybernetics.    Not sure who appoints the committee (does the govt have any say at all?)  but the members, assuming they have an interest in being on the committee will now do so knowing 3 things that change the functioning of the apparatus.

1) Someone with the intimate ear of the PM (and who has been on TV running around the streets after live COVID contacts without regard for public safety)  is sitting in on and speaking to the committee in progress.  - Disruptive Noise in the system of scientific discussion

2) They are being Observed by someone with influence in No 10 where No 10 may have non-infinitesimal influence on the composition of the committee

3) The single channel communication between scientists and government is compromised by being copied to an amateur-science channel with political bias and one who could easily misreport the committee over that channel either through a wish to get his point across or through not being a scientist simply misunderstanding somethinh

Cybernetically speaking, therefore, the apparatus of government is compromised by someone improperly being there.

Let's not forget they have form for this - apart from thieving public money for himself and being caught, why did Liam Fox have to leave the MOD - disregard for protocol and propriety not to mention national security.

The MEKON has no place on this committee.  His place is to advise the PM as is the committees, without interference from him on their channel.   It Stinks!

ps Hands off relationship between Government and public non governmental bodies was my special subject in final year Law, not through choice unfortunately.  (I quite admit that this was a long long time ago and we might have different standards or understanding of propriety now). This stinks.

Inappropriate to be in attendance. The politicians/advisors should pose the questions and receive the answers in order for them to balance the science against other priorities - economic, political etc to form policies. The scientific advice shouldn’t be influenced by the politics - or be seen to have had an influence. I thought that was an accepted position. 

he's a chancer

All these people voting for Boris because they think the EU is run by unelected burocrats.  Meanwhile he is sending his unelected mate everywhere.  

Sorry but this sooooooooo wrong. He’s not science friendly, he’s pseudo-science friendly.

Cummings is known for being a believer of all the latest pseudoscience fads. Some of his blog posts sent me into despair. He’s like a monkey with a hand grenade. Wintertree and I had made a similar observation months ago.

His mark was all over the early government policy in the crisis: overconfidence in data “science“  and bullshit models that don’t work.

It’s Official: The end of days are here; we agree on something.  

I'm surprised he can tear himself away from tormenting souls damned to the flaming depths in the 6th dimension of hell to spend time sitting in on SAGE meetings. Unless of course he's up here as part of his father's bidding, preparing the way for the ultimate battle and assembling the four horsemen of the apocalypse : War, Famine, Pestilence & Death. Cummings is the antichrist.

Edit: to say I hope somewhere in his sulphurous  lair his Cambridge Analytica software is analysing this thread. Just so I can reiterate my distaste for the tawt.

Well, the way I see it is that SAGE is set up for open discussion by scientists to come to a view that is then submitted to the politicians. It is totally inappropriate for that process to be guided or nudged during that process by potiticians. The politicians role is to frame the question, get the answers and then make a political judgement based on as much evidence as possible.SAGE is the middle bit, Cummings may have a role in framing  the question and terms of reference and also is guiding the political judgement. He has no role in SAGE and definitely should not.

Remember this was a man advocating herd immunity without actually knowing if immunity was conferred by infection. That alone damns him in my eyes as someone who has no scientific background.

I believe so.  Piers Morgan and David Davis have been saying things that seem sensible.  We are DOOMED I tell you...

I don't have a problem with Cummings or advisors, Boris Johnson( personally yes I do) or anyone else who is elected by the majority vote. However, transparency is one of the pillars of democracy and successive governments have not been transparent. Cummings advicing on scientific advice given by an independant body is a a choice for the prime minister to make that's fine. Having influence over how the scientific advice is put together or presented is wrong.  Then to not disclose to the public, Parliament, opposition parties or whoever and deny it, makes it undemocratic. A whole lot of transparency would be nice otherwise we have to rely on leaders who don't communicate with a public that they need on board. 

The CNN interview with Piers rattled me. For 12 minutes I nodded along agreeing with every word he said.  If there wasn’t a pandemic on I’d have gone to get my head checked out.

I think it is.

An analytical mind is an analytical mind. It's listening to experts that matters.

He's undoubtably a clever guy, and I hate the Tories, and who is on the committees should certainly be published, but I like that he's on it TBH. He's a major advisor to Bojo and him being more knowledgeable should not be seen as a bad thing.

There is a world changing event and someone very bright goes along on behalf of the government  to a meeting to listen to the scientists discuss the problem and understand how they come to conclusions. He isn't stopping the scientists report, he is sitting in listening to them, maybe asking questions. 

It all sounds fairly sensible to me, this is a virus that is killing worldwide, I don't see it as a time to become all precious about who attends a meeting, it isn't the Freemasons.

It's disgusting that scientists can't meet in an ivory tower and make recommendations without anyone there to remind them of the bigger picture.

The worry many people have is that, given that he's such a powerful and effective manipulator (otherwise, why would Boris have appointed him), how much he is telling SAGE what to do rather than the other way round.

That's exactly what happens. SAGE answers questions that the government asks. Ergo, it does what the PM tells them. Patrick Vallance also works to the PM and chairs the meeting. 

I'm no fan of Cummings but this is a storm in a teacup. 

With Cummings, I wouldn't describe it as a 'teacup'. More like a political maelstrom.

Indeed. It's pretty vital to admit what you don't know. Otherwise you are certain to branded as an oddball. I don't know enough about Cummings to know whether he fills the latter slot - I have my suspicions. 

I can think of nothing worse than Cumming in your ear.

(joke!!)

but as its all shrouded in secrecy, we don't know if he simply listens (possibly justifiable) or is more active, maybe even steering the discussion.

Intelligence and wisdom are too different thing.

When faced with complex decision under uncertainty in complex systems, the wise stays humble, and relies on simple heuristics, and trial and error.

The “clever“, however, falls in love with his own intellectual farts, and builds bullshit complex models of the worlds they never work in practice, and typically makes very bad risky decisions.

Decision making under uncertainty is not about listening to experts, it’s not about understanding the world, it’s about risk management, period.

Science friendly is not the same as....actual scientist

Listens possibly, points out avenues discussed that are impossible to implement. Who knows. But just because they are top scientists and experts does not mean some aren't on planet Zog in the real world. 

Plenty of people on this forum are continually banging on about the government not having a clue about anything, and then when someone goes along to a sage meeting for more information that is wrong as well.

Think of this like a computer system development. Cummings is the business analyst. Neither a user nor a programmer, his job is to bridge the two. That he is neither underpins his potential effectiveness because he embraces the problems of both in understanding each other. Whether he has the diplomacy to perform the role optimally is doubtful, but that does not undermine the value in principle of an intermediary.

Then what do you suggest? How do you get ideas from scientists to MPs?

I spent a year with Biosecurity NZ (MAF) years ago as an advisor. It was interesting but tough. You’d be fighting for the science while others were coming from other stakeholder directions, say agriculture, or even the Treasury, but we had to basically get things through to the politician. It’s not an easy path. Sometimes we’d lose and that night you’d watch him talk bollox on TV. 
 

but often the MPs aren’t that educated, and as scientists we talk a different language, and also only saw our sector, so it gets passed through advisors and distilled down, blended with other sectors until the MP/PM gets the advice.. ID much rather have people like Cummings than Bojo. Bojo would be sat looking out the window thinking about something else if he turned up at all.

I spent the last part of my working life on what was often called 'the science -policy interface' - I would not have been able to do that if I hadn't worked in research before then moving to the policy side, although I suppose being in policy before research would work but is more unlikely. I find it difficult to believe that Cummings has the experience or knowldge of scientific research given his background (although who knows what experience he gained in Russia).

First, that is a different discussion from the OP who mentioned that it should have been an MP (I paraphrase a bit here) as opposed to an unelected advisor.

Second, I have no problem with political advisors present in meetings, even setting part of the agenda and asking questions. As long as they are not involved in formulating the answers it is fine.

Third, a lot of your argument seems to be about Cummings in person himself. I agree he is not the most suited person for this role. But, in the original point of the discussion on whether his role is democratic or not, there is a case to be made that the UK specifically voted for a conservative government with Cummings in a major role behind the scenes.

As usual, the handling of communications and transparency could be better, no arguments there.

If he was there to influence the advice (which I cannot imagine the scientists to accept, btw), that would be wrong.

If he was there to learn/guide the committee to answer questions relevant to government/ask questions/etc, it would be fine.

He has the power to influence the UK policy. There is less chance for him to misrepresent the scientific committee if he was present and interacted with them than if he was not present and based his judgement on only reading the report.

You've highlighted the second problem with Cummings. This is a man who doesn’t tolerate dissent. A number of ministers, advisers and civil servants have been pushed aside because they have not submitted to his opinion on everything. Such a person, with effectively the power to hire or fire, is the very last person you want near a committee that needs to act independently. 

So true.  I’ve been to a number of committees where re observers there.  Hey have the Right to speak but they are not there to influence the meeting.  It is possible these should be FOIable
 

what would be useful is to see the operating procedures of the committee.  As an observer/advisor his input should be governed by the chair.  It would indeed be worrying, if him or anyone else were the conduit from SAGE to our political masters.  If the chair of the committee is the conduit, then thats different again.  What the politicos would get then would be the science from the chair and a fire from their observers. 

It won't have escaped Cummings' notice that while we are obsessing with CV there's not much attention being paid to the next car crash, a no-deal Brexit.

We are talking cross purpose. I’m not saying I am against having politicians listening to experts.

What I am against is naive idiots who don’t understand that decision making is a skill, not a science.

He’s clearly not a business analyst, he’s someone in a privileged position of power who is known to have a huge influence government policy. He is also someone with a proven track record of being himself heavily influenced by a circle of pseudo scientists with a sinister agenda.

I think we are. Because those skilled decision makers still need the information.. 

He’s incredibly good at what he does though.

I really dislike the guy, he’s brutal, but he’s a brilliant manipulator. The power he’s created for Boris Johnson is quite brilliant. The Tories were in a mess and somehow he’s got Bojo as the countries savior. That didn’t happen by chance.

but I do think he wants to be successful in power. I’d much rather him then Mogg.

Some information is very valid. Some is useless and in fact damaging.

Good decision makers aren’t good at listening to experts and at acquiring information, they are good at knowing when to ignore them and at filtering it. Bad information is more damaging that lack of knowledge. 

What’s that got to do with SAGE and his attendance 

But they still need to hear that information..

It was a remark in passing. 

Not always. If you give a doctor 100 pieces of information about a patient his diagnostic won’t be as good as if you give him only 4 or 5.
Our brain are not good at processing information we are good at using heuristics.

That’s how we survived an uncertain complex world all this time. Dropping our risk-survival heuristics in favour of “data scientists” is extremely dangerous.

Who would be? At some point advise gets politicized. That’s just how it works. It shouldn’t of course.

I’m staggered. That’s called cherry picking the evidence.

I'm quite bewildered and depressed by the responses to your posts. Most responders don't seem to realize that SAGE reports directly to the PM. They seem to imagine that some sort of intermediary messenger is needed, when in fact the very point of an expert committee is unmediated access to undiluted specialized expertise.

When it's about a pandemic it has to be science led. When our approach is different from other countries, and we're forecast to have the highest death rate in Europe, it's very serious. It's very serious anyway, but it's 'more very serious' if somebody like Cummings has influenced the approach taken when he isn't a scientist, and the priority has to be limiting the harm in terms of ill health and death caused by covid19.

Wrong, it’s shouldn’t be science led, it should be led by skilled, competent decision makers.

Scientists are good at finding possible explanation to things, making good decisions is a very different skill.

When I have a problem with a pipe in the house, I call a plumber with a good track record of fixing pipes, I don’t hire an academic to advise me on  fluid dynamics.

It might be useful to look at the government's SAGE guidance document:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/...

Here's a bit about reporting:

"One or more SAGE representatives will attend the ministerial and/or official group to explain scientific and technical issues. This SAGE representative should be able to present and explain the full range of SAGE views, including from specialities that are not their own. At ministerial meetings the Government‟s Chief Scientific Advisor (GCSA) would usually be the SAGE representative." (p.13).

So Cummings wouldn't officially be reporting. The main problem is one of transparency as a number of people have pointed out. What exactly does he do at these meetings? Does he have any input into the conduct of the meetings or is he there as an observer? And how does this fit in with the principles of membership as laid out in the document (p.19).

are you suggesting Bojo or guys like Trump could sit in a meeting and understand the intricacies of it all?

ignoring the fact Bojo has been missing meetings long before he was ill. Do you not think it’s pretty important others get that advice too?

im quite at a loss why SAGE attendees shouldn’t be Talking to others when they are specifically asked questions from the Cobra meetings, that the PM hasn’t been attending. 

Quite. Patrick Vallance would be the sole representative of SAGE. There is no place on such committees for 'observers'. An 'observer' who also sits on COBR would be reporting illegitimately and unofficially.

Yes. Johnson and Trump are leaders of countries, and expected to be competent to deal with such detail.

It is indeed important that scientific advice is conveyed directly and without interference to decision-makers. In this circumstance, that means that Patrick Vallance should be talking directly to Dominic Raab, with no non-scientific input tainting his advice.

No this was all before Raab, this was when Bojo just wanted to write his book.. 

But you still hire a plumber, a specialist, Cummings isn't a specialist of any sort to do with viral pandemics. 

[''A more transparent approach is needed towards the scientific group convened to advise the government in times of emergency, scientists and policy experts say. One warned that recent revelations could mean Sage potentially gave “flawed” advice.

The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage) became embroiled in controversy on 24 April, when it emerged Boris Johnson’s chief adviser Dominic Cummings had attended meetings.

Sage is intended to provide technical and scientific advice and remain strictly politically neutral during national crises.'' ]

[''Dr Paul Hunter, professor of medicine at the University of East Anglia, said the fact of Cummings’ attendance without the public knowing his level of involvement could taint the advice Sage has given so far.

Senior civil servants invited to attend, including the government’s chief medical officer Chris Whitty, are permitted to ask questions but must submit them in writing in advance.

Hunter, who also sits on a number of World Health Organisation (WHO) committees, said it was not clear if Cummings was subject to the same restraints.

He said: “If he wasn’t and he was contributing to the discussion, then that means we need to be very cautious about the conclusions of Sage.

“Because whether or not he did influence the outcomes we can’t know for certain, and therefore the validity of the advice coming out of the committee might be flawed.

“It has been pointed out quite a lot in the press that a lot of the advice and policies that we have had over Covid-19 has differed quite markedly from advice from international agencies.

“We need to be sure there wasn’t undue political influence at the point those decisions were being taken.” ]

................................

https://www.thecanary.co/discovery/science/2020/04/25/cummings-presence-at-...

These are the pertinent points, I did a google and the canary popped up, but whichever site they're from, this is why it's important to know whether he was involved, and what influence he has had, especially given apparent differences from what it has been advised the UK should do and what has actually happened.

Writing this brings to mind news of Cummings being one who has talked about herd immunity, as well as comments by the previous chief of the WHO questioning whether it's a good idea. If the government is going to mess thing up, it's got to be known why, who has nudged things in that direction, and how democratically/apolitically the decisions on managing this medical/health emergency have been made. If he hasn't had more influence than he should, that needs to be clearly known as well of course. In either case it's a matter of principle democratically that there is transparency, that we know what has happened.

Absolutely.
 

Hilarious! Non scientific input doesn't "taint" political advice, it adds to it. Science is only a part of the evidence base. It provides a unique type of evidence, but doesn't have a monopoly in it.

There is a long history of scientific advice making things worse, usually when it is either given or taken without due consideration of wider issues. The BSE shambles is one example, but there are textbooks full of them. Expertise comes from a range of places. 

I think you’re taking my analogy too far, Rom. Would I have hired Cummings as a Business Analyst? Certainly not. I was simply trying to illustrate how a non-scientist could add value in a room full of scientists discussing scientific matters that untutored politicians would ultimately have to interpret and act upon. This in response to some ill-judged science elitism displayed by a couple of posters.

This.

Timmd, you are letting your bias influence your argument here.

Well they are only following Cummings. Can you not see a distinct problem in, having shouted about following the advice of the science panel, it turns out said science panel had some distinctly political types on it who, as others have mentioned, arent exactly known for handling dissent well.

On the subject of Cummings. It was nice for the BBC to give his wife a spot saying how nice he is. Really good to see this fightback against the London political elite in full swing.

You can imagine the outcry if a political adviser was not there. 
 

Headlines from the newspapers. “ shock horror government does not attend SAGE meetings”.”is the govt ignoring Scientific advice?”

A storm in a teacup 

SAGE should just be presenting cabinet with the results of their models, plus a form of error analysis that even Priti Patel could understand. Cabinet could then revise the parameters of the model and SAGE repeat the modelling. Cummings seems to be entirely superfluous to this process.

The problem with comparing an epidemic with a burst pipe is our old mate, the exponential growth.

Imagines it and nope cant imagine it. If you said "take report and bin it" you might have a point but why exactly is a political adviser needed for the scientists meetings as opposed to getting reports from them?

if the observer is close to powers that appoint the committee than I think the "observer" would have an influence on the conduct of the observed, not good.  That is not "arm's length" impartial advice.

it is a fault in the setup

independent impartial observers of course, but not those like Cummings, both the man and his position

As I said before the interface between the committee and the government should be the method for communication, not accompanied by a noisy amateur channel subject to crosstalk and distortion.

Ben Warner is on SAGE. 2 years ago he was doing physics postdoc. Now he’s a ‘data scientist’ advising This so-called government. His brother, Marc (who worked with Cummings on Vote Leave) won a £250m NHS contract when Cummings entered Downing Street. And now the same company (interestingly called Faculty) has got the contract for NHS tracking app.

All these decisions are made without reference to a CoI protocol; nor are they subject to open tender.

So, not much to be concerned about here...

it's more to the point that his role should be to be present at the interface between the committee and the PM/Cabinet to give advice there.   You don't want political officers and commissars "observing" and "patrolling" all the machinery of state.

Previous governments did not insert political advisors into the SAGE advisory discussion process - they waited for the scientists to conclude their discussions and report back to committees, as per the official guidance linked to by Bob Kemp above.

It's unclear why anyone would make a sensationalist headline such as the above, of the government had followed long established protocols, but were someone to do so it would be an easy accusation to defend by pointing out said protocols.

Trouble is that Cummings 'big picture' is rather abstract.

indeed.

I completely agree but it only reinforces my argument. 

I don’t disagree with having a non scientist there.

(Actually I suspect that most of the people in SAGE aren’t even really scientists anyway, they are academics for sure but not necessarily scientists)

My point is really just that Cummings is a monkey who’s been given a hand grenade.

I find it quite amusing. I bet virtually every one of them voted Remain. 
 

Are you 100% certain or is that wishful thinking?

I am not sure it stands upto scrutiny..

No it doesn’t have non science types on it.  They’re observers.  What they can do is or should be set out in the procedures of SAGE and up to the chair to implement.  If he is too weak to stand up to any attempts to bend the outcome of any discussion to suit a particular political narrative is another issue.

No, clearly no conflict of interest, is there...?

Wow.

What bias would that be?

Excuse my ignorance, but what is a col protocol?

Have you got any evidence for all that? 

CoI = Conflict of Interest

Sorry for the shorthand

Ah, makes mre sense than Control of Infection or Central office of Information

The ££ is ‘commercially sensitive” but the role of Faculty in ‘helping’ the NHS is here

https://faculty.ai/in-the-press/

Both No10 and Ferguson (SAGE member) have tacitly confirmed the involvement of these 2 in SAGE. Previous gatherings of this body have not had ‘advisors’ present.

The point is that so much of this stuff comprises deals done behind closed doors. This government is opaque in some of its most important decisions & tax payers money is being systematically trousered by the ‘elite’ that were presented by Johnson, Gove and their associates to the electorate. as a major part of ‘the problem’ in British politics.

Rest assured, were this stuff going on under a different political flag, there’d be all hell to pay - and quite rightly.

in such a short space of time Johnson’s administration is mired in multiple problems - many self imposed and a direct result of the very ‘us and them’ condition that exists in much of our political life and which they sought to change.

in any other walk of life this kind of hypocrisy would result in wholesale condemnation, not approval or disapproval based on party political persuasion.

And as somebody up-thread succinctly put it, the whole thing ‘stinks’.

Theres a world of difference between analytical and opinionated. Who was it said a little knowledge is a dangerous thing?

I have no idea what you are on about.

This is a fairly sanguine and objective analysis:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/23/world/europe/uk-coronavirus-sage-secret....

Possibly. I just don't think you can get away from political bias. Even in the selection of the experts there is bias. 

We see it in the extreme case with the Trump administration getting rid of heads of agencies who disagree with them and I'm not sure the UK under Boris and Cummings is that different. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/26/no-evidence-no-10-advisers-at...

"Downing Street’s political advisers have never before attended meetings of the UK government’s Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), according to a review of all publicly available minutes of meetings over the last decade."

Feel free to provide examples of what you've found... 

I think what he means is....."LOOK...............SQUIRREL!!"

An interesting read, this thread. 

Nobody seems to really have a problem with a non-expert / non-scientist attending as an observer of this committee, as it may be that the PM has said - go find out whether they talk really high brow academic type stuff, or are they coming up with valid, useful advice that will help inform the political decisions". i.e. are they focussed on the problem at hand.

The problem seems to be purely that it is Cummings attending, and that pretty well nobody that has commented would trust his motives as far as they could throw him.......

crap

it's Cummings and his Brexit Data warfare consultant and what makes it completely wrong is that someone observing the committee has the ear of the Government - ie not an indepentent or impartial observer.  This is completely wrong as it does not allow the committe to operate, and BE SEEN to operate hands-off. 

NOR does it allow a clear communication channel from the committee to the government as they have to second guess what the troll  (and his data-warfare expert )has said and passed back or manipulated

you can't see what is wrong but that means nothing.  There was a council chairman here who could see nothing wrong with the council awarding the recycling contract to the company owned by him and his wife either.  "How could we have known? We're not legal experts" he said at the hearings and later criminal trial.

It is completely at odds with the standards we used to live by in public life.

Reminds me of the scandals of T Dan Smith in our area in the 60s and 70s

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/26/attendees-of-sage-coronavirus...
 

Two members of SAGE say Cummings has had an influence while another one says he hasn’t.

Seems the experts can’t even agree what takes place in their meetings.

There is a doctrine called "undue influence" and in this case what you have just said makes it clear that it cannot be rule out.  Seems like a breach of the principles of administrative and public law to me, but what do I know.

It's a long long time since I disserted on it

The article does not for example clarify as to whether other politicians or people attended such meetings. It limits it to advisers. In an earlier article about Blair last week, it was pointed out that his tram use to attend. It’s not that uncommon. 
 

if there was an issue I am sure that the members of SAGE would have the clout to speak out. One of them Farrar the Welcome  Trust guy did so in the first few weeks about the poor govt response. 

Quite a few dimensions to this story.

Firstly, the question of why it's become public now? As public opinion starts to swing against the government, and given the government's constant mantra "we're led by the science", there's a suspicion that Patrick Vallance and Chris Whitty might be being set up as the fall-guys. I suspect the leak is part of an attempt from (some) scientists to spread some of the blame back to the politicians. Of course, the government should just be more open about the membership of SAGE and its process in the first place, so none of this would arise.

I would guess, though, that at the time Vallance was pleased to have Cummings along. By all accounts, they'd developed quite a close relationship before all this got going, driven by Cummings's (quite genuine) enthusiasm for science. As the government chief scientific advisor SAGE is Vallance's responsibility.  The GCSA is a civil servant and, as such, he isn't an independent scientist, it's his job to serve the elected government.  A big part of that job is making sure that scientific advice is received and acted on.  He may have judged that having the PM's chief advisor at the meetings was a more effective way of doing that than sending the reports through the Cabinet Secretary, or relying on what little direct access to the PM he got himself.  I can see both sides of this argument, which I suspect would be a lot less heated if it wasn't for the reputation of the particular chief advisor involved.

Quite. You've almost grasped the problem. SAGE is the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, one of many such expert groups that report directly. It is intended to furnish nonpolitical expert advice which can then be used to inform political decisions. Non-scientific input taints scientific advice, especially when it is political input.

This has consistently bugged me as the science is only a few of the dimensions the government has to find a good path through.  “The science” should inform their policy not dictate it.  Not that I see many signs of the science behind a lot of our apparent policy decisions.

I agree it does feel a lot like some scientists may get thrown under the bus.  

My objection to the presence of DC is two fold; one is through his role which is primarily political; if such a liaison is needed I would rather see it filled by an experienced civil servant without a political allegiance.  My other objection to the presence of DC is very much specific to him and I freely admit is based in my personal judgement of his professional competencies, as well as open questions over his links and connections; either of these alone worries me.

Members of SAGE can’t necessarily speak freely if they know the right hand man of the PM is taking notes.  

Surely this is all about collective responsibility. We can't be having in-fights among scientists and between scientists and politicians. The leaders should be cracking the whip; it's about coming to decisions based on multi-faceted conflicting requirements, where no-one has the definitive answer.

While having government advisors present isn't great, it's probably more efficient than some devolved communication which removes Downing Street from the front line of debate.

I suspect that if Cummings offered an opinion, he would be eaten for breakfast, and if not, a frank and full discussion of priorities and responsibilities needs to occur.

"I suspect that if Cummings offered an opinion, he would be eaten for breakfast, and if not, a frank and full discussion of priorities and responsibilities needs to occur."

Your already setting up a situation where the most opinionated and dominant characters get heard rather than the science, a poor way to come to a scientific consensus.

'a poor way to come to a scientific consensus.' I don't get this at all. This is science, not social science - in quite a lot of situations if Prof 'A' is correct then Prof 'B' can't be. Consensus doesn't come in to it. We've already seen that.  Whitty thought we could tough it out until we achieved herd immunity, Ferguson (who I don't think is on Sage) came up with numbers that suggested that would be politically and socially impossible.

'Being led by science' is pretty meaningless tbh; at some point you have to balance a whole set of probabilities and probable outcomes - 'I think Prof 'A' is more plausible than Prof 'B', but if I am wrong then more people will die than if I chose the less plausible Prof 'B' and HE is wrong'. You then have to come to a decision, but one firmly rooted in the idea that you may have called it incorrectly so will need feedback loops and the ability and courage to shift policy in the light of new evidence.

I'm not convinced we're doing that.

There is no certainty with the science and this needs to be allowed into the discussion, politics is very much about projecting certainty which is why the two should be kept separate.

”every disaster movie starts with someone overriding the scientist”

for a precedent look at Scientific intelligence during WW2 - One of the things that kept us ahead was the fact that R.V. Jones, a scientist and head of a crucial scientific organisation, had Direct access to Churchill, not via spin doctors or self-appointed special advisors.  This had an impact on everything from detecting and analysing and creating countermeasures against German Radio navigation beam technology to detecting U-Boats and priority being given to resources for developing and evolving technological responses to enemy threats (eg Cavity Magnetron and Bernard Lovell's group developing H2S Radar).

That is what we need now - science informing the PM/Government, not back channels via spin doctors who themselves could be affecting the discussion.

We do well to heed the lessons of the past and not allow info-warriors and propagandists too much Goebbels like influence on the doing of what is needed.

Actually having thought about it, you are right. He doesn't need to be there information gathering or for any other reason; the committee will have - i hope - a clear remit and terms of reference, which he should refer to. and the committee reports directly to the PM, not via him. 

I believe the point of SAGE is as the independent science committee, which then feeds back to COBR, and the PM. If we have (let's be honest) the already over-powered SPAD, Cummings at the no-longer-independent science committee, along with his favoured pet data crank, and then the PM doesn't attend COBR, but rather the absolutely compliant Health Secretary, we've got problems, don't we?

If you're right and he does put too much reliance on theoretical models, then surely being exposed to the Sage discussions is good thing isn't it?  He might learn something.  It's difficult to criticise government policy as scientifically illiterate and then complain when a key government advisor listens in to key scientific discussions.

I am assuming that he really does just listen, but in my experience you don't get to be a senior scientist without being prepared to fight your corner and I suspect that overt interference would be resisted and Cummings is easily smart enough to realise this.    

Absolutely.

As regards the pet data crank --is there  a data scientist on SAGE already? Anybody know.

That depends on how he conducted himself during the meetings - listening, or guiding?  Looking to develop his understanding, or looking to steer discussions.  It could very much go either way.

It's difficult to criticise government policy as scientifically illiterate and then complain when a key government advisor listens in to key scientific discussions.

You are assuming he was "listening in" - we don't know and it could go either way.  The presence of a political - not civil service - appointment who carries a reputation also puts influence onto the panel members without him having to say anything.  

Perhaps we'll find out one day instead of spitballing about it on UKC.

Well, I can't say I'm the biggest fan of Cummings's contributions to national life so far.  I've also read his voluminous blog postings, which reveal (to me) that he reads some interesting people and is interested in ideas, but he's a bit uncritical about some of what he reads, and so what he writes is a bit undigested - and indeed that his enthusiasm for science comes across as a bit uncritical too.

I'm not sure it's right to describe his role as essentially political (depends what you mean by political, of course).  I think it's a misunderstanding to think of him as a spin-doctor in the Alastair Campbell mould.  He wants to create policy and implement it - more like Steve Hilton or Nick Timothy.  But he's much more effective than the former, and luckier than the latter (perhaps, or maybe he made his own luck).  His authority comes from the Prime Minister, with Johnson's lack of interest in the boring details of actually governing giving him the opportunity to fill the vacuum.    I don't think this should have been a surprise; it was pretty obvious that if you voted for Johnson you'd get Cummings, and that's what's happened.  What Cummings wants to achieve with this power is an interesting question and another discussion.

I've been to a couple of meetings with Cummings myself earlier this year.  I'd say two things on the basis of those.  One is that he was entirely respectful to me as a visiting academic, he is well prepared, he listens, he asks probing questions, he's prepared to be contradicted or told a differing opinion, he doesn't seek to dominate the discussion.  The other is that the government people in those meetings - whether civil servants or indeed ministers - absolutely defer to him.  Make of that what you will.

A world-class expert is an elitist, whether a scientist, or an artist, or a football or tennis player, or a concert pianist, or a fighter pilot etc etc.

It is far worse than it looks.  They are giving Cummings cronies access to SAGE, Vote Leave associated data mining companies are getting contracts and access to data for contact tracing.    It is completely corrupt.

https://twitter.com/carolecadwalla/status/1254341051369676800

Is his blog public domain? Do you have a link?

He has been quiet since his lets hire weirdos post

https://dominiccummings.com/

Very, very wordy and as Richard J says somewhat uncritical. I dont really get the idea that he has properly tried out most of what he has advocated in a environment where he could get critical feedback. So ends up very rah rah.

Shades of the Cambridge Analytical debacle.

I've just lost the will to live;

'We should be selecting people much deeper in the tails of the ability curve — people who are +3 (~1:1,000) or +4 (~1:30,000) standard deviations above average on intelligence, relentless effort, operational ability and so on (now practically entirely absent from the ’50 most powerful people in Britain’). '

Put my out of my misery, someone - does he anywhere say what all this exhausting effort is for? What is his objective? What does he want us to achieve?

that stuff just makes me want to get rid of him - I haven't lived these past years to have shite like that taking over

Ian Diamond, head of the Government Statistical Service and chief executive of the UK Statistics Authority is on Sage. I would assume he's a bit of data type. 

Other with data analysis skills would be:

Graham Medley, professor of infectious disease modelling at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

Neil Ferguson, professor at Imperial College London faculty of medicine

Prof John Edmunds, specialist in design of control programmes against infectious diseases at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine

You can see the full membership here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/24/coronavirus-whos-who-on-secre...

I ready it back when it came out a few months ago.  It didn’t give me confidence for the immediate future.

> 'We should be selecting people much deeper in the tails of the ability curve

The tails plural?  As in + 3 sigma and -3 sigma?  Critical typo there.

I’m far from convinced of the merits of a relentless pursuit of intelligence over a good sense of perspective and ability to team work.  Once you start going to the limits you have very few people, only some of whom have kept perspective, compassion and ability to team work well.

Thanks for the observations.  Very interesting.

You and Hans both made a point that the electorate know he came as a package with the PM.  I’m not sure this is a healthy state of affairs regardless of the individuals concerned.   

Seen that list but those people are not pure data scientists as I see it

Cummins pet data crank got his knowledge from somewhere, surely his pro for somebody like that should be sitting on SAGE anyway.Data science is a big thing these days.In China as I understand it there are lots of them in government.

So does anybody know where our expertise in this area at Uni level resides- is it Oxford/ Cambridge/Imperial/elesewhere. Or is it considered not an important area for science ( I cannot believe that in this day and age) .

Cannot believe we are relying on a Cummins to supply that sort of knowledge.

One from Nottingham, one from Edinburgh and the rest are all Oxford/Cambridge or London based.

I wonder how many of them have already caught it.   I bet the proportion is very much higher than in the country at large and there's bound to be a change of perspective between the 'oh f*ck I really don't want to catch this' state and the 'I've already had it and am probably immune' one.

I thought our main scientific adviser to Churchill during ww2 was his friend Lindemann? Who actively sought to disrupt radar preferring his own ideas, encouraged the needless bombing of civilians and thought v2 rockets were a hoax.

I read that in science and government by CP Snow. A few people on this thread could do with reading it.

yes, Lindemann's role was very controversial.  However, RV Jones managed to acquire Churchill's ear very early on and the necessary resources and people for his organisation, dramatically justified by the prediction and eventually detection of the German beam signals - they had to import suitable receivers (Hallicrafters) from the US as the Germans were using comparatively high frequencies to give the beam directionality and the required precision.

Here is a sample of the BBC TV series based on Jones memoirs and recollections that was broadcast in the 70s.  Compulsory viewing!  A book came out later.  I knew someone who was taught physics by Jones and apparently he included war stories in his lectures that entertained but those hearing them didn't realise questions based on that content would often come up in exams!

youtube.com/watch?v=GJCF-Ufapu8&

ps the awful Youtube video quality is totally unrepresentative of the quality and clarity of the received 625 line TV signal in the 1970s - quality was excellent then.  It's like comparing FM radio with mobile phone speech!

The other interesting comparison if you watch this is the sheer volume of information content in this programme.  No wasted music or irrelevant shots of the backs of people's legs or Rockstar scientists gazing into the skies as in modern coffee table "science" programmes, just relentless detail which we all ,lapped up!

How ironic: 'Lindemann believed that a small circle of the intelligent and the aristocratic should run the world, resulting in a peaceable and stable society.' Hmm.

I think at some point in the last decade the information content of Horizon dropped so much it became negative.

might be worth a bit of reading there - I find the Jones story far more interesting even if he did rather blow his own trumpet a bit

Guy Harcup's The Challenge of War back from the 70s is an interesting study of technology rapidly progressing during WW2

The Cummstains Debacle ... Turning up unannounced where they shouldn't, causing consternation and furious mass debate as to who is responsible for this outrageous violation and much embarrassment to the guilty party or parties who had hoped that no one would notice their presence in the meeting room amongst the country's leading scientific minds.

In all fairness, until bits of London started inexplicably exploding, you would! It's a remarkable technological leap for the era.

jk