PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Colman, Elien
AU  - Wanat, Marta
AU  - Goossens, Herman
AU  - Tonkin-Crine, Sarah
AU  - Anthierens, Sibyl
TI  - <em>Following the science?</em> Views from scientists on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study in five European countries
AID  - 10.1101/2021.07.06.21260099
DP  - 2021 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2021.07.06.21260099
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/08/2021.07.06.21260099.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/08/2021.07.06.21260099.full
AB  - Objectives To explore the views and experiences of scientists working on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic, with the aim to learn lessons for future pandemic management and preparedness.Design Explorative qualitative interview study.Participants Twenty one scientists with an official government advisory role during the COVID-19 pandemic in Belgium, the Netherlands, UK, Sweden or Germany.Methods Online video or telephone semi-structured interviews took place between December 2020 and April 2021. They were audio recorded and transcribed, and analyzed using a combination of inductive and deductive thematic analysis techniques.Results Scientists found working on the advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic to be a rewarding experience. However, they identified numerous challenges including learning to work in an interdisciplinary way, ensuring that evidence is understood and taken on board by governments, and dealing with media and public reactions. Scientists found themselves taking on new roles, the boundaries of which were not clearly defined. Consequently, they received substantial media attention and were often perceived and treated as a public figure.Conclusions Scientists working on advisory boards in European countries faced similar challenges, highlighting key lessons to be learnt. Future pandemic preparedness efforts should focus on building interdisciplinary collaboration within advisory boards; ensuring transparency in how boards operate; defining and protecting boundaries of the scientific advisor role; and supporting scientists to inform the public in the fight against disinformation, whilst dealing with potential hostile reactions.What is already known on this topicWhat is already known on this topicTo tackle the COVID-19 pandemic, governments have established various types of scientific advisory boards to provide evidence and recommendations to policy makers.With science becoming a focal point of this pandemic, scientific advisors also found themselves in the public eye.As more attention is being paid to analysing what we can do to be better prepared for the next pandemic, the views of key actors, i.e. government scientific advisors, is still largely missing.What this study addsWhat this study addsThe government scientific advisors working during the COVID-19 pandemic faced a number of challenges such as working in an interdisciplinary way with their peers on scientific boards, establishing a working relationship with government allowing evidence to be taken on board, and dealing with media and public reactions.It is crucial that we take on board key lessons shared by scientific advisors, which calls for building interdisciplinary collaboration within advisory boards; ensuring transparency in both how boards operate and clear boundaries of scientists-government relationship; and supporting scientists in their role of informing the public.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical TrialN/AFunding StatementAll authors received funding from the EU Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation programme (grant agreement number 101003589). The study funders had no role in the conceptualisation, design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscriptAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The study has received ethical approval from the Ethics Committee of Antwerp University Hospital (20/13/150).All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesParticipant level data cannot be shared without approval from data custodians owing to local information governance and data protection regulations.