ABSTRACT
This chapter develops the concept of indirect political authority (IPA) to describe situations where scientists believe their expertise leaves policy-makers with only one reasonable course of action. The authors trace how, during the pandemic, some epidemiological modellers claimed this role – asserting that forecasts left suppression as the sole viable strategy. While defending the legitimacy of IPA in principle, they argue that the conditions for its proper exercise were not met: uncertainty was high, values were contested, and alternative methods were available. The chapter reviews existing theoretical frameworks for science–policy interaction, illustrates IPA’s operation during Covid-19, and proposes governance reforms to clarify when “following the science” is warranted. These include making IPA claims explicit, testing them against evidence and values, and ensuring multi-disciplinary input. The goal is to preserve the rightful influence of science while preventing its overextension into areas that require democratic choice.
