The inside track on Independent SAGE
A summary of the first part of our Nature Protocols paper dealing with the organisation and activities of Independent SAGE.
We recently published an article in Nature Protocols about our experiences communicating science over the last few years. This piece summarises the part of the article relating to the activities and organisation of Independent SAGE. A summary of the second part of the paper (dealing with the learning points from our experience) can be found here, so check that out after reading this.
In 2020, under the shadow of the emerging pandemic, an interdisciplinary group of scientists came together to engage the public with up-to-date and transparent scientific information. From the very earliest days of this public health crisis, it became clear that the appetite for direct, timely, open and honest communication was of huge public interest but was not being adequately met. Independent SAGE attempted to offset part of that deficit through live weekly briefings as well as engaging with the public both directly (using social media) and indirectly (through the mainstream media).
We recently wrote a piece in the journal Nature Protocols - “Independent SAGE as an example of effective public dialogue on scientific research” - describing how and why Independent SAGE came together and the challenges it faced. In the piece we reflect on four years of scientific information broadcasting and discuss the guiding principles we followed. This post is the first of a two part summary of that paper. This part will focus on the background and the history of the group, while the second part will be dedicated to the learning points from our experiences. There is much more detail available in the paper and even more that we had to leave out to due space constraints, but I hope it captures something of what Independent SAGE was all about.
Advisers advise; politicians decide?
Early in the pandemic in the UK, the maxim “scientists advise; ministers decide” was much repeated, but obscured two problems. First, the attempt to draw a firm distinction between science and policy ignores that the implementation of research findings is itself a scientific issue. Second, the aphorism leaves open the question of what (and whose) science was being used to advise the government.
Government policy drew most directly on input from SAGE, the official UK Government Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, but membership and deliberations of SAGE and its sub-groups were initially not public. The prevailing lack of information about the scientific basis of Government COVID decision-making in early 2020, and a perceived lack of candour over uncertainty, was troubling to those outside the corridors of power.
At the same time, there was an overwhelming amount of scientific research being produced and circulating on social media, much of it in the form of scientific pre-prints and peer-reviewed articles of varying quality which often found their way into the public domain with insufficient context. It became clear that additional efforts were needed to help the public contextualize, understand and navigate the scientific evidence relevant to policy responses to the pandemic.
By May 2020, with the help of not-for-profit journalism organization ‘the citizens’, the inaugural line up of Independent SAGE had been convened. The experts that comprised the group were drawn from a purposefully wide range of disciplines including public health, epidemiology, mathematics, immunology, virology, evolutionary biology, clinical medicine, primary healthcare, behavioural and social sciences, race equality and public engagement with science. We chose the name ‘Independent SAGE’, to communicate our aim to serve as an advisory group, but also to signify autonomy from the government and other potential sources of political interference.
UK Science-policy ecosystem
Independent SAGE’s position was that scientific evidence should be made publicly accessible and communicated clearly. We viewed that there was an urgent need to talk about critical questions about public health measures with the public. This meant establishing a two-way dialogue, answering questions, respecting public doubts, and acknowledging uncertainties.
In the UK’s complex science-policy ecosystem, the unique aspects of Independent SAGE were threefold. First, our live interactions with the public were frequent, intensive, driven by issues proposed by the public, as well as being systematically recorded and archived. Second, we developed a particular focus on inequalities and vulnerable groups, including the socio-economically disadvantaged, minority ethnic groups and the clinically extremely vulnerable. Third, we were responsive in our liaison with advocates and campaign groups, striving to support them, where appropriate, in pursuing their goals.
The Independent SAGE approach
The first official meeting of Independent SAGE was held on 4th May 2020 - live-streamed on Twitter and YouTube to an audience of several thousand. This initial meeting showed that there was high demand for public-facing, interdisciplinary science and the group held several live briefings over the following weeks on specific topics (e.g. education, contact tracing).
When (from 23 June 2020) the UK government ended its daily public briefings, we committed to a weekly one-hour briefing live-streamed every Friday lunchtime, which soon evolved into a structured format:
The numbers: a presentation of the latest data and trends in the UK and globally.
Topic of the week: a specialist segment presenting a new Independent SAGE report or covering a theme in detail, featuring expert guests.
Live questions from the audience, submitted by a very broad range of people including members of the public, press, trade unions, politicians and policymakers from UK and abroad.
As the group became established, our aim became clearer: to scrutinize and communicate the best available scientific evidence, to listen to the experiences, concerns and perspectives of diverse members of the public and to put these together in ways that would support those faced with difficult decisions.
Independent SAGE also produced numerous written outputs, shared on our website. These included downloadable reports and policy recommendations, short statements on emerging topics, fact sheets, visualizations (e.g. accessible graphs and diagrams) and a collection of short-format ‘myth-busting’ videos. Our members frequently contributed to broadcast and printed national and international media, as well as engaging on social media. Our reports were cited and members quoted across the full range of both broadsheet and tabloid press, as well as in the UK Parliament and legislatures of the devolved nations (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland).
We produced around 150 weekly live briefings (all of which are recorded and archived on our YouTube channel), over 50 in-depth scientific reports, 16 mythbuster videos and individual members made over 500 appearances on live television and radio. At the height of the pandemic, for example, well over 100,000 people watched our live-streamed briefing every week (e.g. over 200,000 views for the 30 December 2020 briefing) and our Twitter/X feed attracted over 170,000 followers. Our collaborative activities with advocacy groups and unions generated a number of tangible outputs including the “scores on the doors” initiative and the “COVID pledge”.
Winding down the Independent SAGE initiative
The Independent SAGE group was assembled in response to the acute phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nobody at the time knew how long it would be needed for. As the pandemic developed, we expanded, with additional experts joining from disciplines including virology, immunology, primary health care and social sciences. Inevitably, in a situation characterized by considerable uncertainty with decisions that require complex trade-offs, there were some disagreements among members. These could almost always be reduced (though not always fully resolved) by discussion.
Membership of Independent SAGE was entirely voluntary and unpaid, undertaken in addition to each member’s day job. Over time, understandably, some members stepped down, almost always because they were unable to commit further to the time required.
After more than three years of weekly briefings, and as COVID-19 transitioned from an acute to a long-term public health challenge, the sense of crisis diminished. Many members had a backlog of other commitments that had been put on hold. Whilst the group had not formally disbanded, the live weekly briefings moved to every two weeks in spring 2023 and ended in December 2023. The group established a Substack (‘Independent SAGE Continues’); we are still in close contact with one another through social media channels and occasional online or in-person meetings.
If you’ve enjoyed this summary of Independent SAGE’s establishment and workings, based on our Nature Protocols paper, then you might be interested in reading the companion article: “What did we learn from our experiences with Independent SAGE?”, which summarises the learning points from the group’s development.
I much appreciated the work of Independent SAGE & it became my most trusted reference for data & views during the pandemic. I still follow members on social media to keep up to date as the government bodies withdrew & do not seem to be doing up to date monitoring of health issues & threats.
Having lost total trust and faith in our ‘leaders’ and their appointed scientists I was so grateful to find Independent Sage by chance in May 2020. It was, in fact, as a result of seeing its scientists on TV and thinking they seem to explain issues truthfully and in ways I could understand. I found their Twitter feeds and luckily from there Independent Sage. I never missed a briefing! I was grateful then and continue to be grateful to all the scientists of Indie Sage for helping a non scientist to access science. I still turn to those scientists for clear explanations and continued support. I thank you all for your continued hard work.