Robert Dingwall

The French research ecosystem long resisted extending the ethics regulation processes established for biomedical science into the social sciences. This is now changing. This history of resistance is examined, together with the alternatives proposed. These include self-regulation by professional associations. Consideration is also given to the wider legal environment for French social sciences, particularly the laws on defamation and privacy, which also influence the opportunities for research and for the pursuit of grievances by participants. The introduction of ethics regulation, through IRB-style committees in universities and research organizations, reflects isomorphic pressures from the international research community, reinforced by the impact of the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR) on the application of national privacy law. Nevertheless, outside the specific domain of health-related research, ethics regulation still sits more lightly on French social science than in the anglosphere.

Historically, sociologists have taken little interest in epidemics or pandemics. An important exception is PM Strong’s work, inspired by the experience of HIV/AIDS in the 1980s. Strong proposed that all viral or bacterial epidemics were accompanied by three societal epidemics: of fear; of explanation and moralisation; and of action. This model is applied to the Covid-19 pandemic of 2020-2023. The chapter notes the pervasive influence of fear - on biomedical and public health scientists as much as the general population - and its use as an instrument of governance. It considers the moralising of both conspiracy and Zero-Covid advocates. It shows the turn to biomedicine in response to demands for action and the creation of space for a resurgent biomedical imperialism. Democracy gave way to iatrocracy, rule by biomedicine. The chapter concludes by reflecting on sociologists’ responsibility to examine medicine as a social institution rather than being co-opted to its agenda.

The emergency response to the COVID-19 pandemic has required a rapid acceleration of policy decision making, and raised a wide range of ethical issues worldwide, ranging from vaccine prioritisation, welfare and public health ‘trade-offs’, inequalities in policy impacts, and the legitimacy of scientific expertise. This paper explores the legacy of the pandemic for future science-advice-policy relationships by investigating how the UK government’s engagement with ethical advice is organised institutionally. We provide an analysis of some key ethical moments in the UK Government response to the pandemic, and institutions and national frameworks which exist to provide ethical advice on policy strategies. We draw on literature review, documentary analysis of scientific advisory group reports, and a stakeholder workshop with government ethics advisors and researchers in England. We identify how particular types of ethical advice and expertise are sought to support decision making. Contrary to a prominent assumption in the extensive literature on ‘governing by expertise’, ethical decisions in times of crisis are highly contingent. The paper raises an important set of questions for how best to equip policymakers to navigate decisions about values in situations characterised by knowledge deficits, complexity and uncertainty. We conclude that a clearer pathway is needed between advisory institutions and decision makers to ensure ethically-informed debate. The emergency response to the COVID-19 pandemic has required a rapid acceleration of policy decision making, and raised a wide range of ethical issues worldwide, ranging from vaccine prioritisation, welfare and public health ‘trade-offs’, inequalities in policy impacts, and the legitimacy of scientific expertise. This paper explores the legacy of the pandemic for future science-advice-policy relationships by investigating how the UK government’s engagement with ethical advice is organised institutionally. We provide an analysis of some key ethical moments in the UK Government response to the pandemic, and institutions and national frameworks which exist to provide ethical advice on policy strategies. We draw on literature review, documentary analysis of scientific advisory group reports, and a stakeholder workshop with government ethics advisors and researchers in England. We identify how particular types of ethical advice and expertise are sought to support decision making. Contrary to a prominent assumption in the extensive literature on ‘governing by expertise’, ethical decisions in times of crisis are highly contingent. The paper raises an important set of questions for how best to equip policymakers to navigate decisions about values in situations characterised by knowledge deficits, complexity and uncertainty. We conclude that a clearer pathway is needed between advisory institutions and decision makers to ensure ethically-informed debate.