Science and politics during the COVID-19 pandemic

How political leaders have publicly addressed COVID-19-related topics can influence both levels of trust and the type of citizens’ response [7]. Indeed, as [9] highlighted, people’s attitudes and behaviours can be influenced by how the COVID-19 crisis has been framed in scientific discussions, media and social media communication, and political speeches. Also, trust in key actors is fundamental to enhancing citizens’ adherence to restrictive and protective measures embracement [10, 11] and increasing the willingness to be vaccinated [12, 13]. Especially in highly uncertain and complex contexts–like the COVID-19 crisis–attitudes and behaviours can be shaped by relying on institutions, policymakers, and scientific experts [14].

Starting in early 2020, the link between science and politics has strengthened and become more explicit. Indeed, during the pandemic, scientists have been asked for their specialist support to design, orient, and implement measures to manage the spread of the virus. Dedicated scientific advisory boards were created [15] to allow governments implementation of evidence-based strategies [16]. Besides politicians, science and scientists have thus played a key role. However, with the onset of the COVID-19 crisis, public-health policies were introduced without knowledge about the virus. This illustrates how scientific experts and political actors had to progressively re-calibrate measures introduced considering new knowledge advancements [7, 8]. In such an uncertain situation, "the ability of heads of governments and global health authority figures to communicate publicly on the impact of COVID-19 and the measures taken to mitigate risks are critical" [6]. Furthermore, politics and science had to deal with the widespread demand for open and transparent information [17, 18].

Especially in the first stages of the pandemic, scientists–not only from the health and life sciences fields but also experts from the social sciences [19]–had to provide to governments evidence in a strict time frame, working in an uncertain, fast-changing environment. Leading political leaders had to make decisions in a period in which there was high scientific uncertainty–e.g., regarding COVID-19 severity and transmissibility–and daily debates among experts on the best strategy to manage the contagion [20, 21]. In this complex scenario, political leaders appealed to their nation by emphasizing their support for science (and scientists) and the need to rely on it (them). Precisely, in Western countries [22], technocratic-oriented messages about the virus and "follow the science" claims characterized governmental and scientific communication during the first phase of the pandemic. As highlighted by [23], appealing to science–and relying on scientific experts–can reinforce policy strategies and increase citizens’ policies’ acceptance. As [24] pointed out, since the onset of the pandemic, citizens experienced a polarized political debate regarding the COVID-19 health issue, its gravity, and the best strategy to manage it. Furthermore [25], highlighted that leaders’ reputations–built before the outbreak of a crisis, such as the COVID-19 pandemic–can affect citizens’ trust and willingness to follow institutional dispositions. During an emergency, public confidence can also be reduced by communications or actions that emphasize a lack of coordination, agreement, and transparency among scientific experts and political leaders [26].

Many studies have analyzed the communication of political actors during the COVID-19 pandemic, but the representation of science in official political discourses was rarely explored. In their semiotic analysis of the speeches of Italian, French, and Spanish presidents during the pandemic [27], concluded that the political leaders discursively used the relationship between science and politics to strengthen or justify the strategies chosen. [22] analyzed the Dutch Prime Minister’s press conferences and the related Twitter responses in the first stage of the pandemic. Their research showed that in these official statements, scientific experts were presented as entirely reliable and competent to propose COVID-19-related measures, thus deserving to be blindly trusted. However, social media extensively criticized the government’s incapacity to acknowledge and communicating uncertainty among scientists. According to [28]–who analyzed 29 political leaders’ statements made during the early phase of the pandemic outbreak–despite the different communication strategies adopted by political actors in their speeches, most of them share a common characteristic, i.e., nationalism. Indeed, scientific experts are mainly presented in leaders’ speeches from a national point of view and are often invited to institutional press conferences. Given the rise of support for populist ideologies in Europe in the last decade [29, 30] and the increased politicization of science during the COVID-19 pandemic [31], other studies specifically analyzed the role played by science in populist narratives about the health crisis. In their research about governmental responses to the pandemic and their impact on citizens’ behaviors [32], highlighted that populist governments were more likely to implement popular short-term policies and share anti-scientific positions belittling the severity of the crisis–thus increasing citizens’ likelihood of non-compliance with preventive measures and of minor threat perceptions. These results are in line with previous literature on populists’ anti-scientific attitudes [33–35]–especially regarding criticism towards scientific institutions and scientific experts [36]–and their influence in decreasing citizens’ compliance towards public health measures [37].

Given the relevance of science and politics during the pandemic period and the limited research specifically oriented to analyzing how science is represented and communicated in political actors’ speeches, our paper aims to give a preliminary and descriptive contribution to this literature. Our analysis focuses on three cases: the United Kingdom, Italy, and the European Commission.

The contexts

Boris Johnson: The representation of science as a national pride

Boris Johnson cited science 133 times in the 94 speeches delivered in the first two years of the pandemic (the ratio between the extracted fragments and the speeches delivered is 1.41). Therefore, science is a recurring topic in his communication. It is possible to obtain an overall picture of his view by observing the network of co-occurrences (Fig 1) and comparing it with some of the fragments extracted from the speeches (See Tables A1 and A2 in the S1 Appendix for some statistics about the texts and the network). The sub-network on the right contains the words that follow or precede "science". It, thus, includes the characteristics and aspects closest to science extracted from public communications. The sub-network on the left relates to scientists. Some terms, including "country" and "British", connect the two networks. This link demonstrates a close connection between science and scientists on one side and the country on the other within Johnson’s narrative.

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Johnson.

Network of word co-occurrences about science.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282529.g001

The following fragment is an example of the first theme we have identified: the instrumental use of science to develop a national identity. In this excerpt, Johnson talks about the British scientists researching to fight the covid. The premier exalts the value of his country’s sciences. In doing so, he appeals to pride and, at the same time, to national identification:

We will build on the expertise and originality of our scientists, who have allowed Britain to contribute more to the global struggle against covid than any other comparable country, providing an object lesson in the value of British life sciences. (J, fragment n. 34).

Johnson skilfully links the image of the scientists to Great Britain. Therefore, the resulting idea is that the country contributed "more than any other" to fighting covid. Scientists are then evoked with a precise goal, as their success is evidence of the power of the United Kingdom. Hence, the citation of science and its actors is instrumental. The key (here and in other fragments) is using the words "our scientists", who appear—even if he does not say so directly—as the representatives "of our people" or "our heroes" and help heighten national pride.

The second theme is about the rhetoric of British power. In the following excerpt, the leader identifies a specific purpose: to have the UK regain its place as a scientific superpower.

"We want the UK to regain its status as a science superpower and, in so doing, to level up." (J, fragment n. 5).

The term "superpower" also emerges from the network of co-occurrences, as well as "nation" and "status". These words reinforce its use from an instrumental point of view to foster identification. Even financing science is associated with defence, which will serve "to engage with and help the rest of the world" (J, fragment n. 18). Therefore, the superpower narrative translates beyond the scientific sphere, including military power. In addition, this reference is also a way to propose a development model that will create "hundreds of high-skilled jobs across the country" (J, fragment n. 12). For Johnson, science will thus become the driving force of the country’s well-being. In the network of co-occurrences, this theme is represented, for instance, by the words "invest", "change", "progress", "ensure", and "train".

The third and final theme is the guide of science. In the network, it emerges from words such as "guide", "goal", and "strategic". During the pandemic, the premier stated that "we must, and we will be guided by the science" (J, fragment n. 47). However, elsewhere, he reiterates that politics and the government "have a role in making demands, explicitly framing the challenges we hope that science can meet" (J, fragment n. 17). Consequently, a representation of science as an instrument of politics emerges. Science is a means to solve problems, create jobs and contribute to the country’s green revolution, given its "Promethean faith in new green technology" (J, fragment n. 8).

In Johnson’s view, science is supported by both public and private resources, as evidenced by the following example:

"The whole experience of the Covid pandemic is that the way to fix the problem is through science and innovation, the breakthroughs and the investment made possible by capitalism and free markets (J, fragment n. 8)."

Science is, then, a key to the success of the country. At the same time, however, if it is made possible by capital and the free market, the latter and the government will set the objectives it has to achieve.

Sergio Mattarella: The ethical representation of science

Mattarella cited science 124 times in his speeches delivered during the pandemic, with a fragment/speech ratio of 1.16 (Table 1). The network of co-occurrences includes three sub-networks (Fig 2). The first contains science-related words, while the other two concern research and scientists. What binds the three sub-networks together is the word "Italy". As for Johnson, there is a union around the country. However, other elements make the president of the Italian Republic’s discourses different from the British Prime Minister’s. For example, he mentions that Italian scientists get recognition for their discoveries; but he also notes that they operate in research institutes worldwide. In the network relating to scientists, the words: "passion", "discovery", "expert", and "award" express this condition (Fig 2). The following fragment gives an example:

"We have very valid researchers in Italy; we have great Italian scientists operating in our laboratories and others worldwide." (M, fragment n. 7).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 2. Mattarella.

Network of word co-occurrences about science.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282529.g002

This affirmation is an exaltation of the value of Italian researchers. However, the president probably also intends to mention their difficulties finding a job in their country, often leading to the so-called "brain drain" issue.

Mattarella often refers to science in an idealized way. For example, it results when he talks about the need to make good use of discoveries. He frequently uses a metaphor of covid as a "referendum" on science. The Italian president affirms that vaccinations were a kind of referendum against science. The words "vaccine" and "referendum" point to this theme in the network about science (Fig 2). According to Mattarella, the referendum saw a result of "9 to 1 support of the benefits of science" (M, fragments n. 5 and n. 6). The referendum metaphor relates to the vaccination debate. In Italy, the anti-vaccine and no-mask minority mobilized on social media–[68] highlighted a sharp change in the emotions expressed about COVID-19 vaccines in trending Italian tweets, from joy and support to sadness and concern, after the (temporary) suspension of the AstraZeneca vaccine–and in the street during the pandemic.

These protests also echoed in the parliament. Mattarella has repeatedly expressed and supported his position favourable to vaccinations, indicating them as the instrument to overcome the crisis and relaunch the economy.

The next theme is science and civil liability. The Italian president often repeats how discoveries can also involve risks. To avoid such risks, he invokes a critical spirit, attentive to human lives, as in this fragment:

"Science is to help us with its enormous constant progress, but at the same time, the techniques operating to the borders of human life require a critical spirit in designing the future." (M, fragment n. 23).

Hence, the fear is that, alongside the great opportunities offered by the progress of science and technology, "new risks of homologation, exclusion, loss, distrust also emerge" (M, fragment n. 22). Based on this perspective, science needs to keep a high "sense of responsibility" (M, fragment n. 39). A continuous call to conscience (expressed by the word "conscience" in the network) and civic sense emerges. For example, in the case of the vaccine:

"It resulted from courageous choices, the progress of science, conscientious behaviours, diffused civic sense, and a convergence between institutions and citizens." (M, fragment n. 24).

Science also results as a powerful weapon. Unlike Johnson, however, it is not only an instrument to strengthen the country’s image. Instead, Mattarella points out that it will make the whole world better, even from a moral point of view, since "science offers us the strongest weapon, prevailing on ignorance and prejudice." (M, fragment n. 33). Speaking of the pandemic, which has hardly affected Italy, he finally states that vaccines should be "available for everyone worldwide" (M, fragment n. 35). This view, as opposed to Johnson’s, also connects to the universalistic role of science as a force that creates bridges and helps to overcome the barriers that separate peoples, as in this example:

"Research and science have conquered extraordinary results in such a short time, thanks to an international collaboration that has exceeded limits and barriers." (M, fragment n. 25).

von der Leyen: The representation of science as a source of integration

The president of the European Commission frequently mentioned science in her speeches. However, she did less than Johnson and Mattarella. We found, in fact, 102 fragments out of 115 discourses with a fragments/speeches ratio of 0.89 (Table 1).

The graphical representation of the co-occurrences shows three sub-networks centred around the words science, research and scientists (Fig 3). Two terms act as a bridge between the three networks. The first term is "Europe", which refers to the institutional level occupied by von der Leyen. The second is "innovation", which emerges, for example, from the following fragment where she affirms that the EU possesses this potential, in addition to the scientific ones: "we have the innovation and the scientific capacity—here […] and in the European Union "(vdL, fragment n. 13).

Download:

• PPT
  PowerPoint slide
• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 3. von der Leyen.

Network of word co-occurrences about science.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0282529.g003

In her speeches, she touches on three major themes: the relationship of science with Europe, industry, and women’s rights.

Regarding the first theme, von der Leyen defines the European Union as the "powerhouse of science" (vdL, fragment n. 42) and Europe" links together the three networks (Fig 3). For this reason, she cites the tools that made it possible to achieve this position, such as the Horizon funding programme for scientific research (vdL, fragment n. 43). However, the concept is different from Johnson’s superpower, as it is broader and includes all EU countries. Here also comes into play the idea that science must lead to concrete results under Europe’s umbrella. An example is the following fragment where she affirms that innovations (the second word that unites the three networks) are the result of the encounter between science, ideas, and appropriate funding:

"[…] this is what Europe can achieve when finance meets science when ideas turn into innovation and products on the market". (vdL, fragment n. 45).

The second theme is the relationship with the industry. For von der Leyen, industry and science must work together to achieve success. Science should drive innovation—and, therefore, success—in the EU industry. The following excerpts are examples of this perspective: "Industry needs to keep up with science" (vdL, fragment n. 36) and "industry has to match the ground-breaking pace of science" (vdL, fragment n. 37). They differ significantly from Johnson’s idea, where the industry assigned the objectives to science. Here, the synergy also includes the relationship with institutions and cooperation between the public and the private sectors (vdL, fragment n. 40). Observing the network of word co-occurrences, for example, the fact that "industry" and "connect" unite the science and research networks confirms the link with the industries.

Finally, the third theme concerns women’s rights and gender equality and their role in science. The President of the European Commission enters the debate both as a woman—as she was the first woman to be elected president of the European Commission—and by her institutional role. Not surprisingly, "women" is one of the words that connect the sub-network of science with that of scientists (Fig 3). In her speeches, she firmly states that "Of course, women are made for science." (vdL, fragment n. 29) and "Some of Europe’s best scientists and engineers are women." (vdL, fragment n. 20). When she adheres more to her institutional role, the focus is instead on the fact that Europe seeks to promote the active participation of women in science since "It will invest in quality education for girls and women, including scientific education." (vdL, fragment n. 6).

Von der Leyen thus shows a multi-faceted vision of science linked to her institutional role. The analysis reveals a project where science, industry, and European institutions should work closely together to drive the economic and social well-being of the EU. Therefore, we have defined this perspective as an "integration" since, compared to Johnson and Mattarella, it aims at progress involving a plurality of stakeholders, and it is less anchored to national pride and the exaltation of ethical implications of science.