"Suivre la science" en temps de pandémie

During the Covid-19 pandemic, “science” was frequently invoked to justify the implementation of drastic public health measures. In doing so, policymakers presupposed a linear model in which scientific knowledge dictates political decisions. In this article, we offer a critical analysis of these assumptions. The application of the linear model in complex situations occurs only by (a) simplifying the situation, (b) exaggerating the certainty of scientific knowledge, and (c) neglecting the role of non-epistemic values. These three conditions carry significant costs in terms of the objectivity and transparency of the grounds for decision-making and of the democratic quality of deliberation. These critiques lead us to formulate a cyclical model in which (a) grounds for decision-making come from a plurality of sources, (b) scientific knowledge informs political options, (c) political deliberation and non-epistemic values hold a prominent place, and (d) decision-making is iterative rather than definitive. This implementation of scientific pluralism raises challenges related to the integration of heterogeneous forms of knowledge and broader issues concerning the proper functioning of democracy.