Expertise in crises

This project explores the role of experts in policymaking in times of crisis. Our main case study is the Covid-19 pandemic, which shares characteristics with natural catastrophes and wars.

In each, decisions are urgent, stakes are high, uncertainties are deep, evidence is changing, and values are in conflict. These form our definition of crisis. How should we make use of experts during crises, to develop policies based on the best available science?

The importance of expertise is widely acknowledged and expressed in slogans like “listen to experts!” But experts often disagree, they sometimes get it wrong, and their advice is value-laden. Our project is framed around these challenges: disagreement, limitations, and objectivity.

Over three years, we will explore the nature of each problem, develop strategies for managing them, and propose changes to institutions for accessing expertise.

The project is in philosophy (social epistemology and philosophy of science) but uses empirical psychology and mathematical decision theory.

We will synthesise existing literature on the topic, confront it with recent experiences, and critically evaluate how we can better position ourselves ahead of the next crisis.

The project is topical, as theories of expertise have attracted much interest and crises provide a unique testbed for them. It is important, since we expect crises to occur more frequently due to climate change. It is urgent, as we do not know when the next crisis will strike.