A well-known adage within Britain’s political circles suggests that scientific advisors should be “on tap, not on top.” This concise phrase, frequently linked to Winston Churchill, underscores a fundamental democratic principle: science ought to inform, rather than dictate, the choices of policymakers.
This dynamic was particularly evident during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite widespread claims by UK politicians to be “following the science,” numerous critical decisions, ranging from financial support for self-isolation to school closures, could not be solely determined by scientific counsel. Furthermore, certain questions posed significant challenges for immediate scientific answers. Consequently, policymakers were often compelled to navigate these uncertainties through a process of trial and error.
In contrast, the current administration under Donald Trump is reportedly curtailing access to scientific expertise. Government health agencies are rescinding long-standing guidelines on various health matters, including vaccinations and the effects of cell phone radiation, purportedly under the banner of the “Make America Healthy Again” initiative.
However, what happens in scenarios where scientific understanding is still developing, and the situation does not constitute a global emergency? The central question then revolves around the appropriate timeframe for policymakers to await the clarification of scientific findings.
One of the most significant ongoing debates across many nations concerns the potential prohibition of social media use for individuals under sixteen, mirroring Australia’s legislative action at the close of the previous year. Proposed bans generally garner substantial public support. Nevertheless, the most robust scientific evidence currently available indicates that, on a broad population scale, the impact of social media on adolescent mental health is minimal. This raises the question: should political leaders disregard this evidence in favor of majority opinion?
Adhering to such a course of action would align with Churchill’s established maxim. As reported, by the middle of 2027, more conclusive evidence regarding the harms associated with social media is anticipated. This improved understanding will stem from a randomized trial currently underway in the UK and the observational data derived from Australia’s implemented ban. Therefore, the most judicious approach appears to be awaiting definitive scientific outcomes before proceeding with policy implementation. To adapt the original idiom, science should be available for consultation, not directive control—and this requires adequate time.