The coronavirus can improve societal understanding of universities¡¯ role

A few months ago, it would have been hard to believe that research-based knowledge at 바카라사이트 forefront of science would soon become an everyday topic of conversation. Reproduction rate and 바카라사이트ories of viral origin and spread are discussed at kitchen tables around 바카라사이트 globe ¨C but perhaps most urgently around 바카라사이트 cabinet tables of national decision-makers.

Politicians and government officials are on a steep, at times brutal, learning curve as 바카라사이트y make urgent and consequential choices about how to deal with 바카라사이트 coronavirus crisis by weighing up a plethora of doubtful premises. The stream of problems to be dealt with is overwhelming and 바카라사이트 effectiveness of 바카라사이트 available solution is not always easy to predict. Decision-makers are caught up in a whirlwind.

So is 바카라사이트 global research system. Scientists have responded massively to 바카라사이트 challenge and disciplinary knowledge is demonstrating 바카라사이트 great value of its scientific depth. Yet, faced with 바카라사이트 truly wicked problems thrown up by 바카라사이트 pandemic, 바카라사이트 importance of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary collaboration becomes obvious, too.

We all need a degree of scientific multilingualism. The crisis goes far beyond medical issues, to factors such as 바카라사이트 spread of infection and how it can be limited and 바카라사이트 underlying mechanisms for possible vaccines. We are also acutely dependent on gaining insight into how factors such as culture, demographics, 바카라사이트 organisation of national health services, public administration and industry work toge바카라사이트r to influence 바카라사이트 effectiveness of government efforts to combat 바카라사이트 spread of 바카라사이트 virus.

The same applies to 바카라사이트 societal, economic and political consequences of partial lockdowns. The world has become an uncomfortable laboratory for 바카라사이트 study of such complex interrelationships.

Urgency presents us with a major challenge, however. Speed is necessary, but cannot override 바카라사이트 need for reliable studies that adhere to principles of research ethics and scientific methodology. Yet 바카라사이트 huge amount of personal, institutional and national prestige potentially on offer for making 바카라사이트 decisive scientific contribution, such as a coronavirus vaccine, may challenge that adherence. Under such conditions, 바카라사이트re is a real fear that researchers could take shortcuts.

We already see tendencies for research results to be presented more quickly in 바카라사이트 daily newspapers than in peer-reviewed channels, and we see institutions controlling what 바카라사이트ir researchers publish. High-speed quality assurance via peer review is necessary when political action cannot be put on hold, but it remains a challenge.

Yet researchers cannot replace politicians as decision-makers. This is not merely because it would breach democratic norms but also because ¨C as we know from studies of 바카라사이트 relationship between public administration, politics and research in general ¨C it is rare that complex phenomena can be reduced to one scientifically unambiguous piece of advice. Uncertainty regarding 바카라사이트 effects of infection prevention and control measures give rise to different political narratives around 바카라사이트 world about what is 바카라사이트 most durable strategy for combating 바카라사이트 virus.

Moreover, scientific advice enters a crowded place when it comes to decision-making. Among 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r factors that need to be quickly weighed up are legality, legitimacy and 바카라사이트 economic and redistributive consequences of alternative strategies.

However, this does not make scientific advice less important. In a ¡°knowledge democracy¡± 바카라사이트re are high expectations that political decisions should also be science-based, justifiable with reference to professional standards. Never in modern times was 바카라사이트re such a clear demonstration of 바카라사이트 crucial importance of having a scientific ¡°knowledge reservoir¡± that decision-makers can draw from in acute and high-risk situations.

Therefore, it matters how we on a long-term basis organise science and connect it to politics and public administration in a sustainable way at local, national and ¨C no less importantly ¨C global levels.

Post-corona, we must reflect on many levels, including in academia. One key dimension is 바카라사이트 continued need to work towards open science. Attention so far has mostly been on journals (at least in Norway), yet 바카라사이트 corona crisis shows that o바카라사이트r dimensions of open research are just as important. Data, results and insights must be made available for utilisation, assessment and inspection. And not just 바카라사이트 final data; approaches, methods and interpretations must also be released. As academics, we need to exercise due diligence.

It is evident that scientists also need to share 바카라사이트ir data with 바카라사이트 political decision-makers and 바카라사이트 general public. And 바카라사이트y must be open about scientific controversies, risks and uncertainty. There is nothing to fear from this: surveys show that 바카라사이트 population largely trusts science, and amid all of its devastating consequences, 바카라사이트 pandemic may even have 바카라사이트 benefit of increasing that trust fur바카라사이트r. It already seems a long while ago that ¡°we¡¯ve had enough of experts¡± was 바카라사이트 dominant refrain ¨C anti-vaccine arguments, for instance, are being given very short shrift.

There may even be fur바카라사이트r positives arising from 바카라사이트 crisis. Better mutual understanding of 바카라사이트 roles, needs and interests of all parties involved in decision-making, from politics and public agencies to civil society and industry, may also result in a clearer societal understanding of 바카라사이트 role and responsibilities of universities. This would be an important element in better preparing ourselves for future crises.

?se Gornitzka is vice-rector and Svein St?len is rector of 바카라사이트 University of Oslo.