ABSTRACT
In this chapter, I will thematize the role of expertise in the Covid-19 pandemic. I will look at different types of expertise, including scientific advisory bodies and the role of biomedical sciences, both in public discourse and policy-making. Similar to the case of climate change there is a large role for commentators operating in public and the attendant issue of competition for epistemic authority which gives rise to strategies of boundary work. Contrary to climate change, there is no international science assessment, and a lack of reliable data, but there are scientific advisory bodies which have been set up by nation states, and which provide advice to governments about what action to take.
After the outbreak of the pandemic in early 2020 and some quick research results about the nature of the virus and the development of vaccines, many unknowns remained. Despite the unknowns, there is a political imperative to take decisions. No government in the world could afford to ignore the problem, and most implemented drastic measures supposed to halt the spread of the disease. While science provides knowledge about facts, experts make judgements about what to do. They do this in the face of scientific uncertainty. Unlike scientists who strive to reduce uncertainty, experts try to answer the question of what we should do, given the knowns and unknowns. Of course, we witness scientists making recommendations for action, thus creating the impression that their judgement is not an opinion but something more credible and reliable. This mixing of roles complicates the discourse as epistemic authority is claimed, and attributed unevenly across claims makers.
