by The Government has not paid enough attention to the long-term collateral damage of greenhouses, according to the majority of British scientists surveyed.
A wide-ranging survey carried out by The Telegraph and Censuswide shows that almost seven in ten (68 per cent) academics believe that more thought should be given to the outcome of the closure of the country.
The comments are in stark contrast to the public discourse at the height of the pandemic, when only a few dissenting scientific voices spoke out to highlight the health and economic risks from green tea.
While just over half (51 per cent) of scientists thought green cuts were proportionate and always justifiable, one third disagreed.
The survey also shows that while 44 percent of scientists believed that pandemic modeling was “excellent” or “good”, 37 percent thought it was “average”, “poor”, or “very poor”.
Experts said the findings show there was far less scientific consensus than the public believed, and warned that many academics felt unable to speak their minds at the time.
Scientists feared a loss of patronage
Professor Robert Dingwall, a former government Covid adviser, from Nottingham Trent University, said: “It has always been clear that those of us who were able to make evidence-based criticism of ‘official science’ and government action, enjoyed for implicit support that is not small. in the scientific community.
“However, this has led to concerns about loss of patronage, access to research grants and difficulty in publishing as the cost of speaking out.
“Others have certainly paid a price for trying to articulate a loyal opposition. I don’t blame anyone for keeping their head down if they have a career to build, a family to support or a quiet life.”
Bob Seely, a Tory MP who spoke out during the pandemic against lockdowns, said: “At the time we were, understandably, focused on immediate risk.
“However, it was also clear that little consideration had been given to the long-term damage to society, particularly in the development of young people. Schools should never have been closed. We are seeing a generation of damaged young people.
“Too much politics came from a few scientists pushing a political agenda.”
He said: “The lack of interest in the origin of the virus seems strange.
“My fear is that the lockdown will at least be seen as an ineffective way of dealing with the crisis. I think the lack of open, science-led conversation during the crisis was troubling.”
Scarred knee
Last month, the World Bank warned that a lockdown disruption to education would leave generations of children with severe developmental and learning delays.
NHS waiting lists soared to a record 7.8 million last September and thousands of extra non-Covid deaths have come from the pandemic, particularly among heart and cancer patients.
A study by University College London in February estimated that 12,000 years of life were lost in Britain due to the delay in diagnosing skin cancer during the Covid lockdown.
Gordon Wishart, chief medical officer at Check4Cancer, and visiting professor of cancer surgery at Anglia Ruskin University, warned repeatedly in 2020 and 2021 that delays in cancer diagnosis and treatment would lead to deaths, but said his concerns were ignored .
“I felt that my concerns were falling on deaf ears as far as the Government is concerned,” he said.
“I’m really concerned that we wouldn’t do anything differently if we had another pandemic, because the Covid Inquiry didn’t seem interested in identifying what went wrong with our approach, and how we would change it first another time.”
The Telegraph survey, carried out between December and February by 198 scientists from universities across Britain, also revealed that 70 per cent believed that government decisions were not transparent or well communicated.
Only three per cent thought that the Government had taken all scientific opinions into account, while a third believed that officials had only focused on a minority of opinions.
Sunetra Gupta, a professor of theoretical epidemiology at the University of Oxford, said it was important to prevent the “abuse and persecution” of scientists willing to challenge the consensus.
“There are clearly systemic problems in academia that need to be addressed to allow for a fuller debate on these critical issues,” she said.
“Going forward, I hope that it will be appropriate for universities and institutions such as the Royal Society, as well as the government and the media, to set up more debates and that dissenting voices will be heard.”
The survey also revealed that scientists are split on whether Covid-19 leaked from a laboratory, with the majority thinking that China has not been open and transparent about the origin of the disease.
About a third believe that gain-of-function experiments – which increase the ability of viruses and bacteria – could trigger pandemics, while the same number believe the work could help prevent future outbreaks.
Ravi Gupta, professor of clinical microbiology at Cambridge University, said: “I think the survey shows that people believe in the ability of science to answer questions but some of these experiments are risky and need to be controlled.
“Now that the dust has settled, I hope people will be allowed to have a fair discussion.”
The survey, which dealt with currently controversial issues in science, also found that around six in ten scientists think sex is binary, while a similar number agree that gender is fluid.
Responding to the survey, a Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: “During the pandemic, the Government acted to save lives and livelihoods, prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed, and delivered rolling out a first class vaccine that cost millions.
“We have always said that there are lessons to be learned from the pandemic and we are committed to learning from the results of the Covid-19 Inquiry, which will play a central role in informing the Government’s planning and preparations for the future.”
Analysis
Skeptical scientists must ensure their braver side
Read more
