Have you ever thought about how decisions that impact our lives are made? For instance, why did some countries handle the COVID-19 pandemic better than others? It’s not just about politics; science plays a huge role too.

Three scholars, Collins, Evans, and Reyes-Galindo, have an interesting idea. They suggest that scientists should learn about non-scientific topics to give better advice to policymakers. This way, the science stays accurate, and the advice is more useful. They call this 'virtual diversity'.

But here’s the thing: they separate science and politics. They think scientists should focus on being experts in their field and leave the political side to others. However, this approach might not work as well in real-life situations.

Let’s look at South Africa’s AIDS policy. It took a long time for the government to accept scientific advice on HIV/AIDS. This delay cost lives. Similarly, during the COVID-19 pandemic, countries that trusted and followed scientific advice fared better.

The scholars' idea is great, but it needs tweaking. For science to truly protect lives, both scientific and political sides must be solid. We need to ensure that decisions are based on both reliable science and fair politics. Without this, even the best scientific advice might not make a difference.

'Getting Science Involved: Can it Really Save Kids Lives? '

Actions