A consensus of evidence: The role of SPI-M-O in the UK COVID-19 response.
A consensus of evidence: The role of SPI-M-O in the UK COVID-19 response.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.jbior.2022.100918
复制
发表时间：
2022-12
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Medley, Graham F.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Medley, Graham F.
COVID-19 疫情给科学政策界面带来了一系列挑战，至少在最初，这些挑战对大多数参与者来说都是新奇的。在英国，已经制定了紧急情况科学咨询小组（SAGE）委员会制度，以整理并向政策制定者（即公务员）和决策者（即民选代表）提供证据（SAGE，2022）。我担任 SAGE 小组委员会的主席，该委员会专注于传播动力学 (SPI-MO)，这是与病毒学、临床医学、行为和公共卫生等其他流派一起考虑的科学证据流之一。传染病传播动态建模在其与政策制定的关系方面有特殊考虑，本评论是对其中一些问题的个人反思，并非团体或官方观点。关于 SAGE 和建模在 COVID-19 流行期间的表现和作用已经有很多调查和讨论，包括公开调查（英国 Covid-19 调查，2022）。我还知道 SARS-CoV-2 继续在高水平传播，SAGE 和 SPI-MO 可能会被要求提供未来的证据和建议。SPI-MO 由独立（即非政府）学者组成，他们与秘书处（即政府雇员）合作，根据 SAGE 的输入生成证据，从而为政策制定提供建议。 SAGE 并不建议制定哪些政策，而是建议制定政策时可能考虑的科学证据和建议。政府内部和非政府之间在信息共享和所需的行为准则方面存在很大区别，因此在两个领域之间自由传递信息是不可能的：必须跨越一道栅栏。 SPI-MO 的主要成果是一份共识声明，其中解决了政策制定者向我们提出的问题以及成员提出的可能与政策相关的问题。专题内容来自会员，但大部分是公务员为公务员撰写的。共识声明均可在 SAGE 网站上获取。请注意，SPI-MO 成员发表的研究并不构成 SPI-MO 的产出，除非包含在共识声明中。我的角色主要有三个。首先，了解模型和建模者的要求，并考虑我们是否有资源和数据来提供答案。其次，支持委员会达成共识，这是有用的，但不会掩盖固有的不确定性。第三，确保非建模者也能理解共识。第一个和第三个角色主要是栅栏两边使用的不同语言之间的翻译，而第二个角色则充满了行话和特定主题的速记。
The COVID-19 epidemic posed a set of challenges for the science-policy interface that were, at least initially, novel for most participants. In the UK, the scientific advisory group for emergencies (SAGE) committee system has been developed to collate and present evidence to policy-makers (ie civil servants) and decision-makers (ie elected representatives)(SAGE, 2022). I chair the sub-committee of SAGE focussing on transmission dynamics (SPI-MO), which is one of the streams of scientific evidence that is considered alongside other streams, such as virology, clinical medicine, behaviour and public health. Modelling of the transmission dynamics of infectious disease has special considerations in its relationship to policy development, and this commentary is a personal reflection on some of those issues and is not a group or official view. There is already much investigation and discussion about the performance and role of SAGE and modelling during the COVID-19 epidemic, including a public inquiry (UK Covid-19 Inquiry, 2022). I am also aware that SARS-CoV-2 continues to be transmitted at high levels, and that SAGE and SPI-MO might be asked to provide future evidence and advice.SPI-MO is composed of independent (ie non-government) academics, who work with a secretariat (ie government employees) to generate evidence based on modelling for input to SAGE and thence advice for policy development. SAGE does not advise which policies are developed, but rather the scientific evidence and advice which might be taken into account as policy is developed. There is a strong distinction between those within and without government in terms of sharing of information and required code of conduct, so that passing information freely between the two arenas is impossible: there is a fence that has to be worked through. The main output from SPI-MO is a consensus statement which addresses questions we were asked by policymakers, and issues that members raised as being potentially policy-relevant. The subject-specific content is from members, but it is largely written by civil servants for civil servants. The consensus statements are all available on the SAGE website. Note that research published by members of SPI-MO does not constitute SPI-MO output unless it is included in the consensus statements. My role has been largely three-fold. First, to understand what was being asked of the models and modellers, and to consider whether we had the resources and data to provide an answer. Second, to support the committee in coming to a consensus view which is useful, but which does not hide the inherent uncertainty. Third, to ensure that the consensus is understood by non-modellers. The first and third roles are largely translation between the different languages used on either side of the fence, whereas the second role was rife with jargon and subject specific shorthand.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1016/j.socscimed.2020.113423
发表时间：
2020-12
期刊：
Social science & medicine (1982)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Atkinson P;Gobat N;Lant S;Mableson H;Pilbeam C;Solomon T;Tonkin-Crine S;Sheard S
通讯作者：
Sheard S
DOI：
10.1098/rstb.2021.0001
发表时间：
2021-07-19
期刊：
Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences
影响因子：
--
作者：
Brooks-Pollock E;Danon L;Jombart T;Pellis L
通讯作者：
Pellis L
DOI：
10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114907
发表时间：
2022-05
期刊：
Social science & medicine (1982)
影响因子：
--
作者：
Rhodes T;Lancaster K
通讯作者：
Lancaster K
影响因子：
3.5
作者：
通讯作者：
--
影响因子：
4.4
作者：
McCabe R;Donnelly CA
通讯作者：
Donnelly CA